(continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
Objectification.)
refute
▸ verb: prove to be false or incorrect
▸ verb: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof
“…You have implied that I am a part of a problem rather than of a
solution…” – gruff
Yes, I have and retain that view. So far I see no actual refutation of
this view.
“…You have implied that I am a tea bagger…” – gruff
That was an extension to the previous comment, was hyperbolic
association and an attempt at levity. This I had hoped to be clear
with the use of the emoticon [ ;-) ]
“…You have implied that I support fascism, totalitarianism and other
(similar) ideologies…” – gruff
If you read it that way, such an interpretation was not intended. My
actual words were: “In the sense of the way Chomsky defines anarchy, I
would say that I am proposing it as being a preferable stance than
that of supporting and participating in fascism, totalitarianism and
other ideologies.” I retain my stance.
My guess is that you do lean toward these and other ideologies more
than you lean towards Chomsky’s notion of anarchy or perhaps even the
principle of universality. I don’t know for sure about the latter.
What you write about Noam seems to support (be evidence for) my guess.
Of course, you admit to not knowing his view(s) of anarchy, so the
discussion breaks down from that point on. To help us discuss this
more extensively, I ask that you read this short decade old interview
with Noam about anarchy. I resonate with most of the views expressed
therein. Then perhaps you could with more information provide evidence
against his view(s).
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
“…You have implied that I do not wish to explore "the truth" which I
take to mean your truth…” – gruff
Well, the ‘truth’ in context included the following: “…that they are
quite different”. Here we were talking about the terms ‘right’ and
‘power’. The confusion might be caused by my not having gone into
detail enough. I will do my best to remedy that a bit now. I meant to
imply that a ‘right’ is something innate and a ‘power’ is something
granted. I used the Declaration of Independence to support this view.
Specifically, the following excerpt, often quoted, seldom studied:
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed…”
Note how the terms are differentiated in this context. A ‘right’ is
assumed to be innate. A ‘power’ is something consented to. This is and
was the totality of my truth of differentiation of the two terms in
our current context. If you still disagree, I will await your
evidence.
“…You have implied that my logic and reason are not only false but
childish and irrational..” – gruff
You will have to provide evidence about the ‘childish and irrational’
part. I used the term ‘logic’. Again, in the context and given my
understanding of the terms used as evidenced by the document quoted
above, until evidence is provided, I stand by my contention that the
terms are different and any attempt to exchange them *in this precise
context* would not have the same meaning as was your contention.
“…You have implied that I am naďve…” – gruff
You will have to show evidence of this gruff. The one time I used the
term ‘naďve’ I was applying it to my own thinking, not yours.
“…You have implied that I do not know the simple definition of words…”
– gruff
Again, you will have to provide evidence for this argument. I have
suggested that in specific circumstances, as mentioned above, two
words have a specific and unique meaning when used in the specific
context we are discussing. There was no generalized suggestion that
you do not know “the simple definition of words”. I did also suggest
that you falsely argued that appeasement meant the same thing as not
keeping a standing army. So far I see no evidence to change this view.
“…You have implied that I have conducted a "takeover" of the original
theme of this post…” – gruff
The original theme of the topic (not post) was and remains *”Her”
Objectification*. We have gone far afield from any discussion
associated with Slip’s first post:
“The newest mustering of contempt for flagrant expressions of male
perceptions concerning females as sexual objects opens yet another
door to deeper insights into this age old dilemma within a era of
modernist interpretations….” – SD
QED
“… And you have implied that I am in favor of force over agreement…” –
gruff
I do not accept that characterization without evidence.
“…I contend that you have no basis for these contentions and that
perhaps you are merely being a contrarian or an instigator…” gruff
See above.
“…That said, I will attempt to rebut much of what you say or at the
very least explain my reason and logic more clearly for your
edification. First and foremost, I am very much in favor of peace on
earth. Yet
however much we pay lip service to that phrase, there is no evidence
whatsoever in our entire past nor in our contemporary world that such
a condition is currently possible and with that lack of evidence or
even inclination on the part of the world, recommending that we
disband our military and lay down our arms seems to me just plain
foolishness….” – gruff
Gruff, I am very glad to hear that you are in favor of peace on earth
or at least give lip service to the phrase. Maybe we could start a new
topic on it since this is the first time the phrase has been used in
this topic by either of us?
Are you recommending that we ‘disband our military and lay down our
arms’? I know I have not done so.
“…As an aside and regards your criticism of my argument through asking
questions, was this not the highly regarded method used by
Socrates?...” – gruff
have anything to do with representations of Socrates’ methodology
except perhaps for the question mark.
In the current context, I mean more precisely to point out that you
are not doing either: 1) making a clear argument nor 2) asking a
Socratic question. I contend that your answers are more along the line
of rhetorical questioning as the link above addresses and that they
are leading a person *who has not nor is apt to agreed with your
contention* to your point of view.
I will add that it is my opinion that when you asked:
“Isn't that as much a form of status discrimination as any caste
system? What if you wanted to live in east LA, or Oakland, or
Chinatown? Wouldn't you feel set upon by foolish and irrational
prejudices?” – gruff
…these questions could be interpreted as being Socratic in nature.
However, when you directly asked me:
“Do you really think we'd still be here had we de-militarized at any
time during the Cold War? Do you really think that we'd have gone
unscathed had we de-militarized at any other time since?” – gruff
…I found the questions to be disingenuous in the sense that they at
once included your answer in them and little room for an opposing view
and that they to me implied that I was suggesting the very things you
were asking me to defend. In this case, one of the fallacies
associated with methodology is the fallacy of changing the subject:
“…It also works very well in the practice of law…” – gruff
Uhh, in the context of law, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘works very
well’. In fact, IF you are contending that ‘it’, the use of questions,
works well in our interaction too, I will say that they might. It
would depend on many factors. One of which is what the goal is of the
one posing the question. If it is to misdirect, yes, such use of
questions can ‘work well’. IF it is to expand the understanding of
those in discourse, as Socrates did, it can work well too. Again, this
is the case only if the question is well intended, open ended to some
extent and not meant as a means to unduly persuade or misdirect.
Regardless, I prefer open and honest discussion to legalistic
machinations. I also use questions to learn and seldom if ever to
obfuscate or misdirect.
“You confirm that “…Laws are the glue that holds society together and
allow us to live with each other in reasonable certainty of making it
to tomorrow…” is true, then ask what my point is and state that it has
nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Let me point out that every
law, every rule, every regulation is a limitation on individual and
societal freedom and rights and without such limitations we would have
chaotic anarchy.” – gruff
Here I was echoing your use of the two terms ‘rights and freedoms’
which you attribute to Ben Franklin, a direct correlation I had not
made. Perhaps you were not implying that I had. Regardless, in the
current context, I was addressing the earlier point about motor cycle
helmets. My intention was to point out that there was more freedom if
there was NO law about using a helmet. One would have the freedom to
either wear one or not wear one. Your response to this argument was a
non sequitur. It also was the fallacy of generalization:
In my view, Chomsky doesn't do much other than point to a form of
anarchy. This is old hat, if welcome. The key is to find what
minimal structures would ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated
form of life that inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared
work and responsibility as far as possible. The problem with most
discussion in here is that most don't recognise what follows or is
implied in their positions. The deeper problematic, of course, is
that there are 'rules of argument' and varying abilities in it (or
rather various forms of it). More understanding of this needs to be
established, yet how do we do that without some arbiter becoming the
problem - or even the new Fuhrer. Also concealed in much we do are
the rules of mannered society (Norbert Elias) and the gatekeepers of
public air time. Frankly, we can't even lay out the argument and
start looking for evidence, theoretical help and so on - here
personal deceptions about our beliefs and experience are severely
limiting.
It is easy enough to hide snide ad hominem behind assertions to argue
objectively - I've just seen our Home Secretary make an utter arse of
himself trying to say he sacked out drug's advisor over his behaviour
(at a time when all politicians are failing to address their own
thieving and lack of ability), when all the guy has done is be
truthful and reasonably scientific. I can only say we are very bad at
it in here (as most of my students remain, even after three years) -
but then we would be in such a short format. I'd like to see more
reasoned dialogue in here, but there are many other ways to take what
we do. In the end, I prefer the odd smile, jibe, swipe and laugh. We
miss something about being able to share in disagreement, perhaps
whilst thinking 'what the ****' even with the gun lobby - and what can
be done in wit and debunking the over-serious.
On 1 Nov, 10:59, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
> Objectification.)
> refute
> ▸ verb: prove to be false or incorrect
> ▸ verb: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof
> “…You have implied that I am a part of a problem rather than of a
> solution…” – gruff
> Yes, I have and retain that view. So far I see no actual refutation of
> this view.
> “…You have implied that I am a tea bagger…” – gruff
> That was an extension to the previous comment, was hyperbolic
> association and an attempt at levity. This I had hoped to be clear
> with the use of the emoticon [ ;-) ]
> “…You have implied that I support fascism, totalitarianism and other
> (similar) ideologies…” – gruff
> If you read it that way, such an interpretation was not intended. My
> actual words were: “In the sense of the way Chomsky defines anarchy, I
> would say that I am proposing it as being a preferable stance than
> that of supporting and participating in fascism, totalitarianism and
> other ideologies.” I retain my stance.
> My guess is that you do lean toward these and other ideologies more
> than you lean towards Chomsky’s notion of anarchy or perhaps even the
> principle of universality. I don’t know for sure about the latter.
> What you write about Noam seems to support (be evidence for) my guess.
> Of course, you admit to not knowing his view(s) of anarchy, so the
> discussion breaks down from that point on. To help us discuss this
> more extensively, I ask that you read this short decade old interview
> with Noam about anarchy. I resonate with most of the views expressed
> therein. Then perhaps you could with more information provide evidence
> against his view(s).http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
> “…You have implied that I do not wish to explore "the truth" which I
> take to mean your truth…” – gruff
> Well, the ‘truth’ in context included the following: “…that they are
> quite different”. Here we were talking about the terms ‘right’ and
> ‘power’. The confusion might be caused by my not having gone into
> detail enough. I will do my best to remedy that a bit now. I meant to
> imply that a ‘right’ is something innate and a ‘power’ is something
> granted. I used the Declaration of Independence to support this view.
> Specifically, the following excerpt, often quoted, seldom studied:
> “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
> among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed…”
> Note how the terms are differentiated in this context. A ‘right’ is
> assumed to be innate. A ‘power’ is something consented to. This is and
> was the totality of my truth of differentiation of the two terms in
> our current context. If you still disagree, I will await your
> evidence.
> “…You have implied that my logic and reason are not only false but
> childish and irrational..” – gruff
> You will have to provide evidence about the ‘childish and irrational’
> part. I used the term ‘logic’. Again, in the context and given my
> understanding of the terms used as evidenced by the document quoted
> above, until evidence is provided, I stand by my contention that the
> terms are different and any attempt to exchange them *in this precise
> context* would not have the same meaning as was your contention.
> “…You have implied that I am naďve…” – gruff
> You will have to show evidence of this gruff. The one time I used the
> term ‘naďve’ I was applying it to my own thinking, not yours.
> “…You have implied that I do not know the simple definition of words…”
> – gruff
> Again, you will have to provide evidence for this argument. I have
> suggested that in specific circumstances, as mentioned above, two
> words have a specific and unique meaning when used in the specific
> context we are discussing. There was no generalized suggestion that
> you do not know “the simple definition of words”. I did also suggest
> that you falsely argued that appeasement meant the same thing as not
> keeping a standing army. So far I see no evidence to change this view.
> “…You have implied that I have conducted a "takeover" of the original
> theme of this post…” – gruff
> The original theme of the topic (not post) was and remains *”Her”
> Objectification*. We have gone far afield from any discussion
> associated with Slip’s first post:
> “The newest mustering of contempt for flagrant expressions of male
> perceptions concerning females as sexual objects opens yet another
> door to deeper insights into this age old dilemma within a era of
> modernist interpretations….” – SD
> QED
> “… And you have implied that I am in favor of force over agreement…” –
> gruff
> I do not accept that characterization without evidence.
> “…I contend that you have no basis for these contentions and that
> perhaps you are merely being a contrarian or an instigator…” gruff
> See above.
> “…That said, I will attempt to rebut much of what you say or at the
> very least explain my reason and logic more clearly for your
> edification. First and foremost, I am very much in favor of peace on
> earth. Yet
> however much we pay lip service to that phrase, there is no evidence
> whatsoever in our entire past nor in our contemporary world that such
> a condition is currently possible and with that lack of evidence or
> even inclination on the part of the world, recommending that we
> disband our military and lay down our arms seems to me just plain
> foolishness….” – gruff
> Gruff, I am very glad to hear that you are in favor of peace on earth
> or at least give lip service to the phrase. Maybe we could start a new
> topic on it since this is the first time the phrase has been used in
> this topic by either of us?
> Are you recommending that we ‘disband our military and lay down our
> arms’? I know I have not done so.
> “…As an aside and regards your criticism of my argument through asking
> questions, was this not the highly regarded method used by
> Socrates?...” – gruff
> have anything to do with representations of Socrates’ methodology
> except perhaps for the question mark.
> In the current context, I mean more precisely to point out that you
> are not doing either: 1) making a clear argument nor 2) asking a
> Socratic question. I contend that your answers are more along the line
> of rhetorical questioning as the link above addresses and that they
> are leading a person *who has not nor is apt to agreed with your
> contention* to your point of view.
> I will add that it is my opinion that when you asked:
> “Isn't that as much a form of status discrimination as any caste
> system? What if you wanted to live in east LA, or Oakland, or
> Chinatown? Wouldn't you feel set upon by foolish and irrational
> prejudices?” – gruff
> …these questions could be interpreted as being Socratic in nature.
> However, when you directly asked me:
> “Do you really think we'd still be here had we de-militarized at any
> time during the Cold War? Do you really think that we'd have gone
> unscathed had we de-militarized at any other time since?” – gruff
> …I found the questions to be disingenuous in the sense that they at
*** chuckles @ “The key is to find what minimal structures would
ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated form of life that
inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared work and
responsibility as far as possible.” ***
;-) ;-) ;-)
On Nov 1, 9:44 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In my view, Chomsky doesn't do much other than point to a form of
> anarchy. This is old hat, if welcome. The key is to find what
> minimal structures would ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated
> form of life that inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared
> work and responsibility as far as possible. The problem with most
> discussion in here is that most don't recognise what follows or is
> implied in their positions. The deeper problematic, of course, is
> that there are 'rules of argument' and varying abilities in it (or
> rather various forms of it). More understanding of this needs to be
> established, yet how do we do that without some arbiter becoming the
> problem - or even the new Fuhrer. Also concealed in much we do are
> the rules of mannered society (Norbert Elias) and the gatekeepers of
> public air time. Frankly, we can't even lay out the argument and
> start looking for evidence, theoretical help and so on - here
> personal deceptions about our beliefs and experience are severely
> limiting.
> It is easy enough to hide snide ad hominem behind assertions to argue
> objectively - I've just seen our Home Secretary make an utter arse of
> himself trying to say he sacked out drug's advisor over his behaviour
> (at a time when all politicians are failing to address their own
> thieving and lack of ability), when all the guy has done is be
> truthful and reasonably scientific. I can only say we are very bad at
> it in here (as most of my students remain, even after three years) -
> but then we would be in such a short format. I'd like to see more
> reasoned dialogue in here, but there are many other ways to take what
> we do. In the end, I prefer the odd smile, jibe, swipe and laugh. We
> miss something about being able to share in disagreement, perhaps
> whilst thinking 'what the ****' even with the gun lobby - and what can
> be done in wit and debunking the over-serious.
> On 1 Nov, 10:59, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
> > Objectification.)
> > refute
> > ▸ verb: prove to be false or incorrect
> > ▸ verb: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof
> > “…You have implied that I am a part of a problem rather than of a
> > solution…” – gruff
> > Yes, I have and retain that view. So far I see no actual refutation of
> > this view.
> > “…You have implied that I am a tea bagger…” – gruff
> > That was an extension to the previous comment, was hyperbolic
> > association and an attempt at levity. This I had hoped to be clear
> > with the use of the emoticon [ ;-) ]
> > “…You have implied that I support fascism, totalitarianism and other
> > (similar) ideologies…” – gruff
> > If you read it that way, such an interpretation was not intended. My
> > actual words were: “In the sense of the way Chomsky defines anarchy, I
> > would say that I am proposing it as being a preferable stance than
> > that of supporting and participating in fascism, totalitarianism and
> > other ideologies.” I retain my stance.
> > My guess is that you do lean toward these and other ideologies more
> > than you lean towards Chomsky’s notion of anarchy or perhaps even the
> > principle of universality. I don’t know for sure about the latter.
> > What you write about Noam seems to support (be evidence for) my guess.
> > Of course, you admit to not knowing his view(s) of anarchy, so the
> > discussion breaks down from that point on. To help us discuss this
> > more extensively, I ask that you read this short decade old interview
> > with Noam about anarchy. I resonate with most of the views expressed
> > therein. Then perhaps you could with more information provide evidence
> > against his view(s).http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
> > “…You have implied that I do not wish to explore "the truth" which I
> > take to mean your truth…” – gruff
> > Well, the ‘truth’ in context included the following: “…that they are
> > quite different”. Here we were talking about the terms ‘right’ and
> > ‘power’. The confusion might be caused by my not having gone into
> > detail enough. I will do my best to remedy that a bit now. I meant to
> > imply that a ‘right’ is something innate and a ‘power’ is something
> > granted. I used the Declaration of Independence to support this view.
> > Specifically, the following excerpt, often quoted, seldom studied:
> > “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
> > among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> > governed…”
> > Note how the terms are differentiated in this context. A ‘right’ is
> > assumed to be innate. A ‘power’ is something consented to. This is and
> > was the totality of my truth of differentiation of the two terms in
> > our current context. If you still disagree, I will await your
> > evidence.
> > “…You have implied that my logic and reason are not only false but
> > childish and irrational..” – gruff
> > You will have to provide evidence about the ‘childish and irrational’
> > part. I used the term ‘logic’. Again, in the context and given my
> > understanding of the terms used as evidenced by the document quoted
> > above, until evidence is provided, I stand by my contention that the
> > terms are different and any attempt to exchange them *in this precise
> > context* would not have the same meaning as was your contention.
> > “…You have implied that I am naďve…” – gruff
> > You will have to show evidence of this gruff. The one time I used the
> > term ‘naďve’ I was applying it to my own thinking, not yours.
> > “…You have implied that I do not know the simple definition of words…”
> > – gruff
> > Again, you will have to provide evidence for this argument. I have
> > suggested that in specific circumstances, as mentioned above, two
> > words have a specific and unique meaning when used in the specific
> > context we are discussing. There was no generalized suggestion that
> > you do not know “the simple definition of words”. I did also suggest
> > that you falsely argued that appeasement meant the same thing as not
> > keeping a standing army. So far I see no evidence to change this view.
> > “…You have implied that I have conducted a "takeover" of the original
> > theme of this post…” – gruff
> > The original theme of the topic (not post) was and remains *”Her”
> > Objectification*. We have gone far afield from any discussion
> > associated with Slip’s first post:
> > “The newest mustering of contempt for flagrant expressions of male
> > perceptions concerning females as sexual objects opens yet another
> > door to deeper insights into this age old dilemma within a era of
> > modernist interpretations….” – SD
> > QED
> > “… And you have implied that I am in favor of force over agreement…” –
> > gruff
> > I do not accept that characterization without evidence.
> > “…I contend that you have no basis for these contentions and that
> > perhaps you are merely being a contrarian or an instigator…” gruff
> > See above.
> > “…That said, I will attempt to rebut much of what you say or at the
> > very least explain my reason and logic more clearly for your
> > edification. First and foremost, I am very much in favor of peace on
> > earth. Yet
> > however much we pay lip service to that phrase, there is no evidence
> > whatsoever in our entire past nor in our contemporary world that such
> > a condition is currently possible and with that lack of evidence or
> > even inclination on the part of the world, recommending that we
> > disband our military and lay down our arms seems to me just plain
> > foolishness….” – gruff
> > Gruff, I am very glad to hear that you are in favor of peace on earth
> > or at least give lip service to the phrase. Maybe we could start a new
> > topic on it since this is the first time the phrase has been used in
> > this topic by either of us?
> > Are you recommending that we ‘disband our military and lay down our
> > arms’? I know I have not done so.
> > “…As an aside and regards your criticism of my argument through asking
> > questions, was this not the highly regarded method used by
> > Socrates?...” – gruff
> > have anything to do with representations of Socrates’ methodology
> > except perhaps for the question mark.
> > In the current context, I mean more precisely to point out that you
> > are not doing either: 1) making a clear argument nor 2) asking a
> > Socratic question. I contend that your answers are more along the line
> > of rhetorical questioning as the link above addresses and that they
> > are leading a person *who has not nor is apt to agreed with your
> > contention* to your point of view.
> > I will add that it is my opinion that when you asked:
> *** chuckles @ “The key is to find what minimal structures would
> ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated form of life that
> inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared work and
> responsibility as far as possible.” ***
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
> On Nov 1, 9:44 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > In my view, Chomsky doesn't do much other than point to a form of
> > anarchy. This is old hat, if welcome. The key is to find what
> > minimal structures would ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated
> > form of life that inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared
> > work and responsibility as far as possible. The problem with most
> > discussion in here is that most don't recognise what follows or is
> > implied in their positions. The deeper problematic, of course, is
> > that there are 'rules of argument' and varying abilities in it (or
> > rather various forms of it). More understanding of this needs to be
> > established, yet how do we do that without some arbiter becoming the
> > problem - or even the new Fuhrer. Also concealed in much we do are
> > the rules of mannered society (Norbert Elias) and the gatekeepers of
> > public air time. Frankly, we can't even lay out the argument and
> > start looking for evidence, theoretical help and so on - here
> > personal deceptions about our beliefs and experience are severely
> > limiting.
> > It is easy enough to hide snide ad hominem behind assertions to argue
> > objectively - I've just seen our Home Secretary make an utter arse of
> > himself trying to say he sacked out drug's advisor over his behaviour
> > (at a time when all politicians are failing to address their own
> > thieving and lack of ability), when all the guy has done is be
> > truthful and reasonably scientific. I can only say we are very bad at
> > it in here (as most of my students remain, even after three years) -
> > but then we would be in such a short format. I'd like to see more
> > reasoned dialogue in here, but there are many other ways to take what
> > we do. In the end, I prefer the odd smile, jibe, swipe and laugh. We
> > miss something about being able to share in disagreement, perhaps
> > whilst thinking 'what the ****' even with the gun lobby - and what can
> > be done in wit and debunking the over-serious.
> > On 1 Nov, 10:59, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > (continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
> > > Objectification.)
> > > refute
> > > ▸ verb: prove to be false or incorrect
> > > ▸ verb: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof
> > > “…You have implied that I am a part of a problem rather than of a
> > > solution…” – gruff
> > > Yes, I have and retain that view. So far I see no actual refutation of
> > > this view.
> > > “…You have implied that I am a tea bagger…” – gruff
> > > That was an extension to the previous comment, was hyperbolic
> > > association and an attempt at levity. This I had hoped to be clear
> > > with the use of the emoticon [ ;-) ]
> > > “…You have implied that I support fascism, totalitarianism and other
> > > (similar) ideologies…” – gruff
> > > If you read it that way, such an interpretation was not intended. My
> > > actual words were: “In the sense of the way Chomsky defines anarchy, I
> > > would say that I am proposing it as being a preferable stance than
> > > that of supporting and participating in fascism, totalitarianism and
> > > other ideologies.” I retain my stance.
> > > My guess is that you do lean toward these and other ideologies more
> > > than you lean towards Chomsky’s notion of anarchy or perhaps even the
> > > principle of universality. I don’t know for sure about the latter.
> > > What you write about Noam seems to support (be evidence for) my guess.
> > > Of course, you admit to not knowing his view(s) of anarchy, so the
> > > discussion breaks down from that point on. To help us discuss this
> > > more extensively, I ask that you read this short decade old interview
> > > with Noam about anarchy. I resonate with most of the views expressed
> > > therein. Then perhaps you could with more information provide evidence
> > > against his view(s).http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
> > > “…You have implied that I do not wish to explore "the truth" which I
> > > take to mean your truth…” – gruff
> > > Well, the ‘truth’ in context included the following: “…that they are
> > > quite different”. Here we were talking about the terms ‘right’ and
> > > ‘power’. The confusion might be caused by my not having gone into
> > > detail enough. I will do my best to remedy that a bit now. I meant to
> > > imply that a ‘right’ is something innate and a ‘power’ is something
> > > granted. I used the Declaration of Independence to support this view.
> > > Specifically, the following excerpt, often quoted, seldom studied:
> > > “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > > rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > > happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
> > > among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> > > governed…”
> > > Note how the terms are differentiated in this context. A ‘right’ is
> > > assumed to be innate. A ‘power’ is something consented to. This is and
> > > was the totality of my truth of differentiation of the two terms in
> > > our current context. If you still disagree, I will await your
> > > evidence.
> > > “…You have implied that my logic and reason are not only false but
> > > childish and irrational..” – gruff
> > > You will have to provide evidence about the ‘childish and irrational’
> > > part. I used the term ‘logic’. Again, in the context and given my
> > > understanding of the terms used as evidenced by the document quoted
> > > above, until evidence is provided, I stand by my contention that the
> > > terms are different and any attempt to exchange them *in this precise
> > > context* would not have the same meaning as was your contention.
> > > “…You have implied that I am naďve…” – gruff
> > > You will have to show evidence of this gruff. The one time I used the
> > > term ‘naďve’ I was applying it to my own thinking, not yours.
> > > “…You have implied that I do not know the simple definition of words…”
> > > – gruff
> > > Again, you will have to provide evidence for this argument. I have
> > > suggested that in specific circumstances, as mentioned above, two
> > > words have a specific and unique meaning when used in the specific
> > > context we are discussing. There was no generalized suggestion that
> > > you do not know “the simple definition of words”. I did also suggest
> > > that you falsely argued that appeasement meant the same thing as not
> > > keeping a standing army. So far I see no evidence to change this view.
> > > “…You have implied that I have conducted a "takeover" of the original
> > > theme of this post…” – gruff
> > > The original theme of the topic (not post) was and remains *”Her”
> > > Objectification*. We have gone far afield from any discussion
> > > associated with Slip’s first post:
> > > “The newest mustering of contempt for flagrant expressions of male
> > > perceptions concerning females as sexual objects opens yet another
> > > door to deeper insights into this age old dilemma within a era of
> > > modernist interpretations….” – SD
> > > QED
> > > “… And you have implied that I am in favor of force over agreement…” –
> > > gruff
> > > I do not accept that characterization without evidence.
> > > “…I contend that you have no basis for these contentions and that
> > > perhaps you are merely being a contrarian or an instigator…” gruff
> > > See above.
> > > “…That said, I will attempt to rebut much of what you say or at the
> > > very least explain my reason and logic more clearly for your
> > > edification. First and foremost, I am very much in favor of peace on
> > > earth. Yet
> > > however much we pay lip service to that phrase, there is no evidence
> > > whatsoever in our entire past nor in our contemporary world that such
> > > a condition is currently possible and with that lack of evidence or
> > > even inclination on the part of the world, recommending that we
> > > disband our military and lay down our arms seems to me just plain
> > > foolishness….” – gruff
> > > Gruff, I am very glad to hear that you are in favor of peace on earth
> > > or at least give lip service to the phrase. Maybe we could start a new
> > > topic on it since this is the first time the phrase has been used in
> > > this topic by either of us?
> > > Are you recommending that we ‘disband our military and lay down our
> > > arms’? I know I have not done so.
> > > “…As an aside and regards your criticism of my argument through asking
> > > questions, was this not the highly regarded method used by
> > > Socrates?...” – gruff
This is pure unmitigated hubris that makes that of the Titanic a
child's ego in comparison. Neither the slide show nor the article
say what her draft is but I bet there are a limited number of harbors
and ports she can put into. Seven neighborhoods? Hubris squared.
Smokestacks that can be lowered to pass under large bridges? Hubris
to the nth.
I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
On 2 Nov, 16:05, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is pure unmitigated hubris that makes that of the Titanic a
> child's ego in comparison. Neither the slide show nor the article
> say what her draft is but I bet there are a limited number of harbors
> and ports she can put into. Seven neighborhoods? Hubris squared.
> Smokestacks that can be lowered to pass under large bridges? Hubris
> to the nth.
> This is pure unmitigated hubris that makes that of the Titanic a
> child's ego in comparison. Neither the slide show nor the article
> say what her draft is but I bet there are a limited number of harbors
> and ports she can put into. Seven neighborhoods? Hubris squared.
> Smokestacks that can be lowered to pass under large bridges? Hubris
> to the nth.
> > This is pure unmitigated hubris that makes that of the Titanic a
> > child's ego in comparison. Neither the slide show nor the article
> > say what her draft is but I bet there are a limited number of harbors
> > and ports she can put into. Seven neighborhoods? Hubris squared.
> > Smokestacks that can be lowered to pass under large bridges? Hubris
> > to the nth.
On Nov 2, 12:20 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I stated earlier, I know little of Chomsky but I did read the link
you posted regarding the interview with him. Since you recommended
that link I am obliged to assume that you consider it to be a
substantial statement of his view on anarchy. However Chomsky himself
states that he has no confidence in his own views about the "right
way" to achieve it (i.e., his ideal state of anarchy.)
He then agrees with the interviewer that anarchism is formless and
utopian and counters that it is hardly more so than what he considers
other inane doctrines. He begins to give any interested readers hope
by saying that anarchism is in his view an expression of an idea ...
but then wanders off into saying that the burden of proof thereof is
always on those who argue that authority and domination are
necessary.
He then goes on to state that -- as he understands it -- anarchism is
based on hope that some sentiments of human nature include what is
generally referred to in everday society as civilized behavior all of
which I have referred to in numerous posts over the last year. He
then makes the self-contradicting statement that the absense of
government might allow the strong to dominate the weak which he
insists would require some form of organization to overcome that
domination. Would that not be government?
Chomsky also seems pretty well convinced that capitalism cannot
comport with his idea of freedom from oppression. He seems unable to
understand that capitalism when reasonably and properly regulated
would enable people to achieve the greatest amount of personal
freedom. I beleive you have said somewhere in one of your posts that
freedom cannot exist under capitalism but ignore the freedom that
having wealth can give individuals. Of course I have to admit that
the form of capitalism that would best grant these freedoms is an idea
and an ideal that it can be rationally regulated so as to overcome
individual greed.
His ideas regarding anarchist education -- that is, if I am
understanding him correctly -- would lead a child to indulge his own
unique bent. That seems to me not much different from the bent taken
by the children in Lord of The Flies.
When asked how an ideal anarchist society would function on a day-to-
day basis he blithly refuses by saying he wouldn't dream about trying
to do this. Say what?
I'm sorry if this offends, but to me Chomsky is merely indulging his
own ego with the tools of linguistics thus leading him around in
circles of his own making, which also reminds me strongly of your own
circular propositions and questionable arguments sans any substantial
evidence or even credible logic and rationale.
As regards the Declaration of Independence, I have always been at odds
with a number of ambiguous statements therein, most especially those
which require some form of natural evidence which is not defined to
prove the contention that all men are created equal, then goes on to
require a god to have allegedly endowed us with certin unalienable
rights. This is gross error and may have worked on old George but
have little meaning in secular life.
We are born by virtue of natural causes have no "rights" whatsoever,
not even the right to life which can be extinguished even before we
emerge from the womb. Throughout our infancy and early childhood we
maintain life and limb at the discretion and good will of our parents
and/or guardians.
Only when we have achieved a certain stage of growth where we can
begin to make decisions and act on them through individual volition
can it be said we begin to have rights. This is because a right is
taken and held by virtue of our own power and lost by the lack
thereof. This is why, in the sense we speak of, power and right are
synonymous. No matter how many times you say it, rights are not
innate and never will be.
The Declaration is also self-contradictory in that it continues after
it's false claim that we have certain inalienable rights that these
rights must be secured by government which derives it's power to
secure these rights from the consent of the governed. If they were
inalienable rights they would not need to be secured. They would be
forever so, thus they are not only alienable but must be held by the
force of power which I believe stands as evidence from your own pen of
my point.
Regarding the rest of your argumentative contentions and demands for
evidence thereof, the evidence lies in your own words in your earlier
post. I will leave it to you to discern that evidence.
I don't think that the phrase "peace on earth" necessitates a new
topic. It very much belongs here in this discussion of rights, powers
and anarchy. We are discussing a potential form of civilization and
how to attain it. I submit that peace is an apt characterization of
the ideal civilization.
Again I apologize for contradicting you but you very much did, in so
many words, state and imply that we should disband our military and
lay down our arms ... and unilaterally as well.
Then you go into a lengthy argument about the fallacy of
argumentation, citing of all things, a Canadian politician in support
of your points of view. I have read Lindsays explanations and agree
with very few of them and could easily tear most of the apart with
little difficulty.
Much has been written about argumenation and evidence although I admit
that most of my knowledge thereof comes from law, which is based on
argument and evidence. There are volumes written on evidence and the
body of law regarding it is very explicit on what is evidence and what
is not, what is acceptable and what is not, what is valid and what is
not.
My direct questions to you are only disingenuous in that they stem
from statements you have made or strongly implied. Regarding the use
of questions in law, questions are the most frequently used method of
arriving at the truth and uncovering falsehood and mistake.
While it is true there would be more freedom in the example you lay
before me regarding the use of motorcycle helmets, the results would
be far more disastrous and devestating given that most bikers would
likely choose to not wear a helmet, thus dying or being permanently
disabled in many cases which would in turn result in the removal of
their producitve participation in society and the likelihood that
society would end up supporting them.
As regards Franklin, just because he was a respected statesman does
not make his every utterance absolute truth and I contend that he is
in grievous error when he said that those who seek security over
freedom deserve neither.
So from my point of view you have no only not put forth a good
argument for anarchism you have also failed to present any good
evidence for your point of view. Again, my apologies.
On Nov 1, 3:59 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
> Objectification.)
<not restated since it would be repetitious and use up bandwidth>
"... On Nov 2, 2:49 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote: ..."
> “The key is to find what minimal structures would
> ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated form of life that
> inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared work and
> responsibility as far as possible.” ***
> > In my view, Chomsky doesn't do much other than point to a form of
> > anarchy. This is old hat, if welcome. The key is to find what
> > minimal structures would ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated
> > form of life that inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared
> > work and responsibility as far as possible. The problem with most
> > discussion in here is that most don't recognise what follows or is
> > implied in their positions. The deeper problematic, of course, is
> > that there are 'rules of argument' and varying abilities in it (or
> > rather various forms of it). More understanding of this needs to be
> > established, yet how do we do that without some arbiter becoming the
> > problem - or even the new Fuhrer. Also concealed in much we do are
> > the rules of mannered society (Norbert Elias) and the gatekeepers of
> > public air time. Frankly, we can't even lay out the argument and
> > start looking for evidence, theoretical help and so on - here
> > personal deceptions about our beliefs and experience are severely
> > limiting.
> > It is easy enough to hide snide ad hominem behind assertions to argue
> > objectively - I've just seen our Home Secretary make an utter arse of
> > himself trying to say he sacked out drug's advisor over his behaviour
> > (at a time when all politicians are failing to address their own
> > thieving and lack of ability), when all the guy has done is be
> > truthful and reasonably scientific. I can only say we are very bad at
> > it in here (as most of my students remain, even after three years) -
> > but then we would be in such a short format. I'd like to see more
> > reasoned dialogue in here, but there are many other ways to take what
> > we do. In the end, I prefer the odd smile, jibe, swipe and laugh. We
> > miss something about being able to share in disagreement, perhaps
> > whilst thinking 'what the ****' even with the gun lobby - and what can
> > be done in wit and debunking the over-serious.
That said and restated, I will try to elucidate my own view of
anarchism, which in a sense I do consider to be an ultimate form of
society much akin to the 'heaven' given much lip service by religious
types.
As I have noted many times, my faith and belief is in our own species,
the human race, to eventually achieve a utopian form of society
wherein we will be at peace with each other, where there will be no
war nor the need for standing armies, arms, nor for law enforcement
nor the armies of police, security and mercenaries it requires.
However, barring some tremendous breakthrough on a global level, that
day and state of being is much further in the future than we have come
since we first crawled out of the primeval muck. We are still very
much infants in the scheme of things and at very best I would consider
us to be no more than adolescents in this game of civilized society.
In the meantime, it requires a huge body of law, rules and regulations
for us to even survive with each other on a day-to-day basis and this
very body of law precludes anything remotely resembling freedom.
While in an ultimate sense we do have the liberty and freedom to obey
or disobey any part or all of this body of law but the latter
frequently results in an even more severe restriction of any liberty
or freedom (notwithstanding the very real fact that punishment is in
no way a preventative or deterrent except for the offending individual
and then even for only short periods of time.)
"... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.
Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
- like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
beat here.
On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.
> Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
> the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
> been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
> always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
> is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
> creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
> - like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
> to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
> beat here.
> On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> > I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> > reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> > all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> > inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.
> As I stated earlier, I know little of Chomsky but I did read the link
> you posted regarding the interview with him. Since you recommended
> that link I am obliged to assume that you consider it to be a
> substantial statement of his view on anarchy. However Chomsky himself
> states that he has no confidence in his own views about the "right
> way" to achieve it (i.e., his ideal state of anarchy.)
> He then agrees with the interviewer that anarchism is formless and
> utopian and counters that it is hardly more so than what he considers
> other inane doctrines. He begins to give any interested readers hope
> by saying that anarchism is in his view an expression of an idea ...
> but then wanders off into saying that the burden of proof thereof is
> always on those who argue that authority and domination are
> necessary.
> He then goes on to state that -- as he understands it -- anarchism is
> based on hope that some sentiments of human nature include what is
> generally referred to in everday society as civilized behavior all of
> which I have referred to in numerous posts over the last year. He
> then makes the self-contradicting statement that the absense of
> government might allow the strong to dominate the weak which he
> insists would require some form of organization to overcome that
> domination. Would that not be government?
> Chomsky also seems pretty well convinced that capitalism cannot
> comport with his idea of freedom from oppression. He seems unable to
> understand that capitalism when reasonably and properly regulated
> would enable people to achieve the greatest amount of personal
> freedom. I beleive you have said somewhere in one of your posts that
> freedom cannot exist under capitalism but ignore the freedom that
> having wealth can give individuals. Of course I have to admit that
> the form of capitalism that would best grant these freedoms is an idea
> and an ideal that it can be rationally regulated so as to overcome
> individual greed.
> His ideas regarding anarchist education -- that is, if I am
> understanding him correctly -- would lead a child to indulge his own
> unique bent. That seems to me not much different from the bent taken
> by the children in Lord of The Flies.
> When asked how an ideal anarchist society would function on a day-to-
> day basis he blithly refuses by saying he wouldn't dream about trying
> to do this. Say what?
> I'm sorry if this offends, but to me Chomsky is merely indulging his
> own ego with the tools of linguistics thus leading him around in
> circles of his own making, which also reminds me strongly of your own
> circular propositions and questionable arguments sans any substantial
> evidence or even credible logic and rationale.
> As regards the Declaration of Independence, I have always been at odds
> with a number of ambiguous statements therein, most especially those
> which require some form of natural evidence which is not defined to
> prove the contention that all men are created equal, then goes on to
> require a god to have allegedly endowed us with certin unalienable
> rights. This is gross error and may have worked on old George but
> have little meaning in secular life.
> We are born by virtue of natural causes have no "rights" whatsoever,
> not even the right to life which can be extinguished even before we
> emerge from the womb. Throughout our infancy and early childhood we
> maintain life and limb at the discretion and good will of our parents
> and/or guardians.
> Only when we have achieved a certain stage of growth where we can
> begin to make decisions and act on them through individual volition
> can it be said we begin to have rights. This is because a right is
> taken and held by virtue of our own power and lost by the lack
> thereof. This is why, in the sense we speak of, power and right are
> synonymous. No matter how many times you say it, rights are not
> innate and never will be.
> The Declaration is also self-contradictory in that it continues after
> it's false claim that we have certain inalienable rights that these
> rights must be secured by government which derives it's power to
> secure these rights from the consent of the governed. If they were
> inalienable rights they would not need to be secured. They would be
> forever so, thus they are not only alienable but must be held by the
> force of power which I believe stands as evidence from your own pen of
> my point.
> Regarding the rest of your argumentative contentions and demands for
> evidence thereof, the evidence lies in your own words in your earlier
> post. I will leave it to you to discern that evidence.
> I don't think that the phrase "peace on earth" necessitates a new
> topic. It very much belongs here in this discussion of rights, powers
> and anarchy. We are discussing a potential form of civilization and
> how to attain it. I submit that peace is an apt characterization of
> the ideal civilization.
> Again I apologize for contradicting you but you very much did, in so
> many words, state and imply that we should disband our military and
> lay down our arms ... and unilaterally as well.
> Then you go into a lengthy argument about the fallacy of
> argumentation, citing of all things, a Canadian politician in support
> of your points of view. I have read Lindsays explanations and agree
> with very few of them and could easily tear most of the apart with
> little difficulty.
> Much has been written about argumenation and evidence although I admit
> that most of my knowledge thereof comes from law, which is based on
> argument and evidence. There are volumes written on evidence and the
> body of law regarding it is very explicit on what is evidence and what
> is not, what is acceptable and what is not, what is valid and what is
> not.
> My direct questions to you are only disingenuous in that they stem
> from statements you have made or strongly implied. Regarding the use
> of questions in law, questions are the most frequently used method of
> arriving at the truth and uncovering falsehood and mistake.
> While it is true there would be more freedom in the example you lay
> before me regarding the use of motorcycle helmets, the results would
> be far more disastrous and devestating given that most bikers would
> likely choose to not wear a helmet, thus dying or being permanently
> disabled in many cases which would in turn result in the removal of
> their producitve participation in society and the likelihood that
> society would end up supporting them.
> As regards Franklin, just because he was a respected statesman does
> not make his every utterance absolute truth and I contend that he is
> in grievous error when he said that those who seek security over
> freedom deserve neither.
> So from my point of view you have no only not put forth a good
> argument for anarchism you have also failed to present any good
> evidence for your point of view. Again, my apologies.
> On Nov 1, 3:59 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (continuation of discussion with gruff from topic: "Her",
> > Objectification.)
> <not restated since it would be repetitious and use up bandwidth>
IF anyone was perplexed by gruff’s post that started out:
==================================================
"... On Nov 2, 2:49 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote: ..."
> “The key is to find what minimal structures would
> ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated form of life that
> inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared work and
> responsibility as far as possible.” ***
... to which archytas replied that ...
===================================================
Please note that the words attributed to me were in fact a quotation
of archytas’ earlier post and not my words.
On Nov 2, 1:19 pm, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "... On Nov 2, 2:49 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote: ..."
> > “The key is to find what minimal structures would
> > ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated form of life that
> > inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared work and
> > responsibility as far as possible.” ***
> ... to which archytas replied that ...
> > > In my view, Chomsky doesn't do much other than point to a form of
> > > anarchy. This is old hat, if welcome. The key is to find what
> > > minimal structures would ensure a nonetheless democratic and regulated
> > > form of life that inspires peace, creativity and satisfying, shared
> > > work and responsibility as far as possible. The problem with most
> > > discussion in here is that most don't recognise what follows or is
> > > implied in their positions. The deeper problematic, of course, is
> > > that there are 'rules of argument' and varying abilities in it (or
> > > rather various forms of it). More understanding of this needs to be
> > > established, yet how do we do that without some arbiter becoming the
> > > problem - or even the new Fuhrer. Also concealed in much we do are
> > > the rules of mannered society (Norbert Elias) and the gatekeepers of
> > > public air time. Frankly, we can't even lay out the argument and
> > > start looking for evidence, theoretical help and so on - here
> > > personal deceptions about our beliefs and experience are severely
> > > limiting.
> > > It is easy enough to hide snide ad hominem behind assertions to argue
> > > objectively - I've just seen our Home Secretary make an utter arse of
> > > himself trying to say he sacked out drug's advisor over his behaviour
> > > (at a time when all politicians are failing to address their own
> > > thieving and lack of ability), when all the guy has done is be
> > > truthful and reasonably scientific. I can only say we are very bad at
> > > it in here (as most of my students remain, even after three years) -
> > > but then we would be in such a short format. I'd like to see more
> > > reasoned dialogue in here, but there are many other ways to take what
> > > we do. In the end, I prefer the odd smile, jibe, swipe and laugh. We
> > > miss something about being able to share in disagreement, perhaps
> > > whilst thinking 'what the ****' even with the gun lobby - and what can
> > > be done in wit and debunking the over-serious.
> That said and restated, I will try to elucidate my own view of
> anarchism, which in a sense I do consider to be an ultimate form of
> society much akin to the 'heaven' given much lip service by religious
> types.
> As I have noted many times, my faith and belief is in our own species,
> the human race, to eventually achieve a utopian form of society
> wherein we will be at peace with each other, where there will be no
> war nor the need for standing armies, arms, nor for law enforcement
> nor the armies of police, security and mercenaries it requires.
> However, barring some tremendous breakthrough on a global level, that
> day and state of being is much further in the future than we have come
> since we first crawled out of the primeval muck. We are still very
> much infants in the scheme of things and at very best I would consider
> us to be no more than adolescents in this game of civilized society.
> In the meantime, it requires a huge body of law, rules and regulations
> for us to even survive with each other on a day-to-day basis and this
> very body of law precludes anything remotely resembling freedom.
> While in an ultimate sense we do have the liberty and freedom to obey
> or disobey any part or all of this body of law but the latter
> frequently results in an even more severe restriction of any liberty
> or freedom (notwithstanding the very real fact that punishment is in
> no way a preventative or deterrent except for the offending individual
> and then even for only short periods of time.)- Hide quoted text -
“…I take a guess too that anarchy is actually genetically impossible
for humans…” – archy
One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
On Nov 2, 4:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
> the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
> been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
> always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
> is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
> creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
> - like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
> to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
> beat here.
> On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> > I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> > reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> > all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> > inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.- Hide quoted text -
LOL Slip - though I remind everyone this handle is in respect to my
Uncle Archy (pub pianist) and the Italian guy who made steam pigeon
toys for kids in 2500 BC and possibly the thought of having a cup of
tea with them (une tasse de the - archy-tasse) or at least something
that fits in cups.
Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
aren't careful. Once you and Gruff have put enough rubber on the road
it becomes pretty clear the differences still have a rubber base. We
are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no doubt
we are all doing our 'waggle dances'.
There is a fairly deep theory developed from Melanie Klein and Freud's
'Civilization and Its Discontents' (more or less - it's small book, my
eyes fade on the exact title). The suggestion here is that we should
opt for a "depressive position" in life (it's a bit of a mess, we
should cut our cloth etc.) but end up in the "paranoid-schizoid"
position, demonising others as enemies. My own guess on this is that
it works institutionally and that groupthink is a key to the madness
of our politics. I have no doubt now we are dealing with
pathologies. I also believe a key element in traditional anarchism is
pathological. It has the slogan 'all truth lies in the main
destruction' - broadly that society itself is crap and smashing it
will sort things out. This bit is actually OK with me at times - I'd
have blown Parliament up yesterday (preferably with a raspberry-
bomb). What then emerges is the pathology, not the fictional,
wonderful, peaceful ..zzzz.. human. As Gruff pointed out somewhere,
we even need a panoply of rules to cross the road. Many people, quite
rightly on history, think anarchy is just the rule of the beast.
There's an old joke in which the officer insists the squaddie salutes
him. The grunt refuses and is told he must salute the uniform. 'You
take it off and I'll salute it', says the grunt. There may be
something about institution that is OK and only screwed by the gets
who use legitimate authority for illegitimate reasons.
My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we want
to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than a
rule-of-thumb. The British Parliament just needs a bomb - we need to
know how unimportant it has become by hardly noticing that it has
gone. Many 'institutions' are concealed. We don't 'fuck, shit
bastard' much in here, though as 'anarchists' (pages of argument here
that the logo 'anarchista' is so much more cool?) we should as there
is an institution there to attack and even the precedent of Orwell's
1984 in which our honest toil makes it impossible to speak to the
politicians without honestly 'fucking them off'. I think I can argue
that 'bad language' holds some keys in the analysis of how we are
institutionalised. Its prohibition excludes huge numbers of people
from diplomacy. Anyone else, incidentally, a fan of 'Deadwood' in
which bad language is raised back to the Shakespearian fine-art now so
denuded and polite in order to appeal to middle-class nerks dressed as
upper-class turds? Anyone else watching 'The Thick of It'?
My brother, something of a scholar of the Spanish Civil War, points
out that the anarchists really did go on holiday en masse when it was
time to go over the top. They also fought with mad courage. Some of
the US anarchists were hung after years of legal pisswitter, for
refusing to take part in WW1 (what relevance has this capitalist war
got to us?). Courageous English Jews managed to have conscientious
objection to fighting the war against Hitler and were not hung (even
by their own). Israel is using religion to get its own to fight.
We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy Orn.
Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
control. Animals are autopoetic; there is no bee without the hive.
Pack dogs create alphas and omegas without great literature. Ants
take 'slaves' with no great moral posing, Kharzei (definitely Khazi)
promises to expunge the stain of corruption and is barking. I'd even
guess there are biological human defaults. The first questions for
anarchy might well lie in what it is we want to build, which suggests
anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to be. Even postmodernism is
supposed to 'pre-date' modernism, come postmodo before we structure.
On 3 Nov, 08:09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…I take a guess too that anarchy is actually genetically impossible
> for humans…” – archy
> One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
> On Nov 2, 4:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
> > the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
> > been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
> > always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
> > is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
> > creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
> > - like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
> > to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
> > beat here.
> > On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > > > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > > > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > > > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > > > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > > > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > > > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > > > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> > > I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> > > reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> > > all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> > > inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.- Hide quoted text -
" ... I'd even guess there are biological human defaults."
Does it mean we have to be the way we have behaved all along, rooted
in our own basic and socially - formed needs ? For change, to awaken
into another set of needs ( more clear, more peaceful ... ), we'd have
to undergo a surgical operation, medical or genetic intervention ?
I've differed with but always admired Gruff. His life is a case in
point offering particular motivations, realisations and perspective.
It's a journey. There is no basis for us to give in to the urge of
preempting the finality-yet-to-be, when we do not even know if there
is one, much less what that is.
There are countless other lives, some in stark contrast to that of
Gruff, who'd have a different set of motivations, realisations and
perspective. Each, though different, too is a journey.
Anarchy, the process, should raise questioning rebels in all societies
everywhere, insisting on simple and unambiguous statements of purpose
and objective. They should be like light to those accustomed to life
in the ( valuable ) shadows. Anarchists, I would think, do not want
the life to go, only the emotional myths and intellectual finalities
it is projected and coloured with. Ignorance is ineffecient but so '
fruitful.' Complexity is apparent but such a convenience.
We should all be provoking others to think. Not, of course, as a
prattler with flayling stick in hand ! But by refusing power, comfort
and such other being - qualifiers from the argument we have with
ourself. For that, however, we should have begun untying the
complexities unto ourself. Socially, we need to be simple and
unambiguous.
I am reminded of a play Camus wrote : Cross Purpose. I do not know if
am quoting the title correctly.
On Nov 3, 4:57 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> LOL Slip - though I remind everyone this handle is in respect to my
> Uncle Archy (pub pianist) and the Italian guy who made steam pigeon
> toys for kids in 2500 BC and possibly the thought of having a cup of
> tea with them (une tasse de the - archy-tasse) or at least something
> that fits in cups.
> Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
> of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
> aren't careful. Once you and Gruff have put enough rubber on the road
> it becomes pretty clear the differences still have a rubber base. We
> are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no doubt
> we are all doing our 'waggle dances'.
> There is a fairly deep theory developed from Melanie Klein and Freud's
> 'Civilization and Its Discontents' (more or less - it's small book, my
> eyes fade on the exact title). The suggestion here is that we should
> opt for a "depressive position" in life (it's a bit of a mess, we
> should cut our cloth etc.) but end up in the "paranoid-schizoid"
> position, demonising others as enemies. My own guess on this is that
> it works institutionally and that groupthink is a key to the madness
> of our politics. I have no doubt now we are dealing with
> pathologies. I also believe a key element in traditional anarchism is
> pathological. It has the slogan 'all truth lies in the main
> destruction' - broadly that society itself is crap and smashing it
> will sort things out. This bit is actually OK with me at times - I'd
> have blown Parliament up yesterday (preferably with a raspberry-
> bomb). What then emerges is the pathology, not the fictional,
> wonderful, peaceful ..zzzz.. human. As Gruff pointed out somewhere,
> we even need a panoply of rules to cross the road. Many people, quite
> rightly on history, think anarchy is just the rule of the beast.
> There's an old joke in which the officer insists the squaddie salutes
> him. The grunt refuses and is told he must salute the uniform. 'You
> take it off and I'll salute it', says the grunt. There may be
> something about institution that is OK and only screwed by the gets
> who use legitimate authority for illegitimate reasons.
> My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we want
> to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than a
> rule-of-thumb. The British Parliament just needs a bomb - we need to
> know how unimportant it has become by hardly noticing that it has
> gone. Many 'institutions' are concealed. We don't 'fuck, shit
> bastard' much in here, though as 'anarchists' (pages of argument here
> that the logo 'anarchista' is so much more cool?) we should as there
> is an institution there to attack and even the precedent of Orwell's
> 1984 in which our honest toil makes it impossible to speak to the
> politicians without honestly 'fucking them off'. I think I can argue
> that 'bad language' holds some keys in the analysis of how we are
> institutionalised. Its prohibition excludes huge numbers of people
> from diplomacy. Anyone else, incidentally, a fan of 'Deadwood' in
> which bad language is raised back to the Shakespearian fine-art now so
> denuded and polite in order to appeal to middle-class nerks dressed as
> upper-class turds? Anyone else watching 'The Thick of It'?
> My brother, something of a scholar of the Spanish Civil War, points
> out that the anarchists really did go on holiday en masse when it was
> time to go over the top. They also fought with mad courage. Some of
> the US anarchists were hung after years of legal pisswitter, for
> refusing to take part in WW1 (what relevance has this capitalist war
> got to us?). Courageous English Jews managed to have conscientious
> objection to fighting the war against Hitler and were not hung (even
> by their own). Israel is using religion to get its own to fight.
> We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy Orn.
> Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
> biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
> control. Animals are autopoetic; there is no bee without the hive.
> Pack dogs create alphas and omegas without great literature. Ants
> take 'slaves' with no great moral posing, Kharzei (definitely Khazi)
> promises to expunge the stain of corruption and is barking. I'd even
> guess there are biological human defaults. The first questions for
> anarchy might well lie in what it is we want to build, which suggests
> anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to be. Even postmodernism is
> supposed to 'pre-date' modernism, come postmodo before we structure.
> On 3 Nov, 08:09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > “…I take a guess too that anarchy is actually genetically impossible
> > for humans…” – archy
> > One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> > understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> > constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> > questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
> > On Nov 2, 4:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
> > > the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
> > > been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
> > > always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
> > > is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
> > > creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
> > > - like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
> > > to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
> > > beat here.
> > > On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > > > > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > > > > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > > > > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > > > > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > > > > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > > > > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > > > > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> > > > I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> > > > reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> > > > all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> > > > inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.- Hide quoted text -
“…Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
aren't careful….” – archy
IF one wishes to find ‘security’ by giving up rights, perhaps archy.
On the other hand, an ongoing cycle of questioning institutions,
removal of those not justified…peace, then the questioning again seems
to be the active and vigilant process – not one that kills the spirit
as institutionalization does.
“…We are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no
doubt we are all doing our 'waggle dances'…” – archy
In the current case, I hope more for an analogy of the democratic
decision making process of animals…thinking of the one of birds at the
moment. When one more than 50% decide to change course, the entire
flock does. There is a revolution rising.
“… My own guess on this is that it works institutionally and that
groupthink is a key to the madness of our politics. …” – archy
“…My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we
want to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than
a rule-of-thumb…” – archy
Then you and Chomsky are at odds.
“…We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy
Orn. Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
control…” – archy
In a word, bollocks…and as many as Slip has too! Everyone with an
ounce of independence who is not fully in the trance of the moment
questions at the very least specific actions of institutions. Often
this goes deeper to the institution itself. Everything from a monarchy
to a theocracy is questioned. The ‘polite pretence’ is using words to
influence and drone a populous to sleep.
“…The first questions for anarchy might well lie in what it is we want
to build, which suggests anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to
be…” – archy
What is built and continually being built is the ‘norm’ in any
society. What is required to retain any sort of rights and actual
democracy is not only some quickly muffled criticism but actions that
refresh the entrenched. Only in this way can we all be saved from our
own lassitude when it comes to looking to social structures for
solace. Of course, if one uses the drone as a model, this is all
wrong.
On Nov 3, 3:57 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> LOL Slip - though I remind everyone this handle is in respect to my
> Uncle Archy (pub pianist) and the Italian guy who made steam pigeon
> toys for kids in 2500 BC and possibly the thought of having a cup of
> tea with them (une tasse de the - archy-tasse) or at least something
> that fits in cups.
> Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
> of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
> aren't careful. Once you and Gruff have put enough rubber on the road
> it becomes pretty clear the differences still have a rubber base. We
> are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no doubt
> we are all doing our 'waggle dances'.
> There is a fairly deep theory developed from Melanie Klein and Freud's
> 'Civilization and Its Discontents' (more or less - it's small book, my
> eyes fade on the exact title). The suggestion here is that we should
> opt for a "depressive position" in life (it's a bit of a mess, we
> should cut our cloth etc.) but end up in the "paranoid-schizoid"
> position, demonising others as enemies. My own guess on this is that
> it works institutionally and that groupthink is a key to the madness
> of our politics. I have no doubt now we are dealing with
> pathologies. I also believe a key element in traditional anarchism is
> pathological. It has the slogan 'all truth lies in the main
> destruction' - broadly that society itself is crap and smashing it
> will sort things out. This bit is actually OK with me at times - I'd
> have blown Parliament up yesterday (preferably with a raspberry-
> bomb). What then emerges is the pathology, not the fictional,
> wonderful, peaceful ..zzzz.. human. As Gruff pointed out somewhere,
> we even need a panoply of rules to cross the road. Many people, quite
> rightly on history, think anarchy is just the rule of the beast.
> There's an old joke in which the officer insists the squaddie salutes
> him. The grunt refuses and is told he must salute the uniform. 'You
> take it off and I'll salute it', says the grunt. There may be
> something about institution that is OK and only screwed by the gets
> who use legitimate authority for illegitimate reasons.
> My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we want
> to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than a
> rule-of-thumb. The British Parliament just needs a bomb - we need to
> know how unimportant it has become by hardly noticing that it has
> gone. Many 'institutions' are concealed. We don't 'fuck, shit
> bastard' much in here, though as 'anarchists' (pages of argument here
> that the logo 'anarchista' is so much more cool?) we should as there
> is an institution there to attack and even the precedent of Orwell's
> 1984 in which our honest toil makes it impossible to speak to the
> politicians without honestly 'fucking them off'. I think I can argue
> that 'bad language' holds some keys in the analysis of how we are
> institutionalised. Its prohibition excludes huge numbers of people
> from diplomacy. Anyone else, incidentally, a fan of 'Deadwood' in
> which bad language is raised back to the Shakespearian fine-art now so
> denuded and polite in order to appeal to middle-class nerks dressed as
> upper-class turds? Anyone else watching 'The Thick of It'?
> My brother, something of a scholar of the Spanish Civil War, points
> out that the anarchists really did go on holiday en masse when it was
> time to go over the top. They also fought with mad courage. Some of
> the US anarchists were hung after years of legal pisswitter, for
> refusing to take part in WW1 (what relevance has this capitalist war
> got to us?). Courageous English Jews managed to have conscientious
> objection to fighting the war against Hitler and were not hung (even
> by their own). Israel is using religion to get its own to fight.
> We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy Orn.
> Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
> biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
> control. Animals are autopoetic; there is no bee without the hive.
> Pack dogs create alphas and omegas without great literature. Ants
> take 'slaves' with no great moral posing, Kharzei (definitely Khazi)
> promises to expunge the stain of corruption and is barking. I'd even
> guess there are biological human defaults. The first questions for
> anarchy might well lie in what it is we want to build, which suggests
> anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to be. Even postmodernism is
> supposed to 'pre-date' modernism, come postmodo before we structure.
> On 3 Nov, 08:09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > “…I take a guess too that anarchy is actually genetically impossible
> > for humans…” – archy
> > One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> > understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> > constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> > questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
> > On Nov 2, 4:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Anarchy translates from the old Greek as 'leaderlessness'. Much of
> > > the talk and action back then concerned small states. A fair bit has
> > > been written on 'Stoneage Economics' - enough to tell us there is
> > > always something governing relations. I take a guess too that anarchy
> > > is actually genetically impossible for humans - we are not amongst the
> > > creatures that manage without hierarchies in collective social action
> > > - like termites and some spiders. Most small societies did find ways
> > > to limit the acquisitional powers of the leaders - I think we miss a
> > > beat here.
> > > On 2 Nov, 21:22, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "... On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote: ..."
> > > > > I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> > > > > our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> > > > > are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> > > > > found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> > > > > cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> > > > > castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> > > > > we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
> > > > I understand and feel much the same when watching, listening and
> > > > reading our own politicians on this side of the pond. I don't believe
> > > > all politicians are bad but they all do seem to have the same
> > > > inability to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.- Hide quoted text -
"... On Nov 3, 1:09 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote: ..."
> One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
Now that's a process and attitude I can agree with and I'm sorry if it
was presented earlier in our discussion/argument and I missed it.
Perhaps it was too veiled to be discernible by my mind's eye.
I have been a skeptic of institutions, behavior, intentions and
everything else in the human basket of goodies for some time.
Might want to be careful what you say archytas. If your equivalent is
anything like our Homeland Security, such comments may place you on
their list of closely watched subjects.
On Nov 2, 9:39 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm not feeling so good either Gruff - made the mistake of watching
> our Parliament in 'action' - like being in traction. Whatever they
> are, it ain't democracy and I just ended-up physically nauseous. I
> found my hands starting to go through the motions of breaking down,
> cleaning and reloading my old Walther P5. I rather like purposeful
> castles-in-the-air, but what I can't stand is putting off forever what
> we think is real by making debate or story-telling all that can be.
“…Now that's a process and attitude I can agree with and I'm sorry if
it
was presented earlier in our discussion/argument and I missed it.
Perhaps it was too veiled to be discernible by my mind's eye…” – gruff
From the one link I gave to one of Noam’s presentations of his view of
what anarchism is:
“…Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden
of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination
are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that
that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they
defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to
illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there
are no formulas.
In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they
commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to
the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas --
challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are
appropriate at all levels…” – Noam Chomsky
> "... On Nov 3, 1:09 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote: ..."
> > One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> > understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> > constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> > questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
> Now that's a process and attitude I can agree with and I'm sorry if it
> was presented earlier in our discussion/argument and I missed it.
> Perhaps it was too veiled to be discernible by my mind's eye.
> I have been a skeptic of institutions, behavior, intentions and
> everything else in the human basket of goodies for some time.
In most of these words of Noam’s, I hear Neil’s words being echoed.
“…Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right
way," and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others,
including good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be
able to say very much with any confidence…” – Noam Chomsky
“…I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though
hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-
Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and
their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all
too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and
intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again
in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand
very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have
only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be
reshaped and constructed…” – Noam Chomsky
“…What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The
answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and
find out…” – Noam Chomsky
“…My feeling, based in part on personal experience in this case, is
that a decent education should seek to provide a thread along which a
person will travel in his or her own way; good teaching is more a
matter of providing water for a plant, to enable it to grow under its
own powers, than of filling a vessel with water (highly unoriginal
thoughts I should add, paraphrased from writings of the Enlightenment
and classical liberalism). These are general principles, which I think
are generally valid. How they apply in particular circumstances has to
be evaluated case by case, with due humility, and recognition of how
little we really understand…” – Noam Chomsky
On Nov 3, 6:48 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
> of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
> aren't careful….” – archy
> IF one wishes to find ‘security’ by giving up rights, perhaps archy.
> On the other hand, an ongoing cycle of questioning institutions,
> removal of those not justified…peace, then the questioning again seems
> to be the active and vigilant process – not one that kills the spirit
> as institutionalization does.
> “…We are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no
> doubt we are all doing our 'waggle dances'…” – archy
> In the current case, I hope more for an analogy of the democratic
> decision making process of animals…thinking of the one of birds at the
> moment. When one more than 50% decide to change course, the entire
> flock does. There is a revolution rising.
> “… My own guess on this is that it works institutionally and that
> groupthink is a key to the madness of our politics. …” – archy
> “…My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we
> want to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than
> a rule-of-thumb…” – archy
> Then you and Chomsky are at odds.
> “…We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy
> Orn. Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
> biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
> control…” – archy
> In a word, bollocks…and as many as Slip has too! Everyone with an
> ounce of independence who is not fully in the trance of the moment
> questions at the very least specific actions of institutions. Often
> this goes deeper to the institution itself. Everything from a monarchy
> to a theocracy is questioned. The ‘polite pretence’ is using words to
> influence and drone a populous to sleep.
> “…The first questions for anarchy might well lie in what it is we want
> to build, which suggests anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to
> be…” – archy
> What is built and continually being built is the ‘norm’ in any
> society. What is required to retain any sort of rights and actual
> democracy is not only some quickly muffled criticism but actions that
> refresh the entrenched. Only in this way can we all be saved from our
> own lassitude when it comes to looking to social structures for
> solace. Of course, if one uses the drone as a model, this is all
> wrong.
> On Nov 3, 3:57 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > LOL Slip - though I remind everyone this handle is in respect to my
> > Uncle Archy (pub pianist) and the Italian guy who made steam pigeon
> > toys for kids in 2500 BC and possibly the thought of having a cup of
> > tea with them (une tasse de the - archy-tasse) or at least something
> > that fits in cups.
> > Don't get carried away with definition Orn - the constant scepticism
> > of institutions becomes the institution of constant scepticism if we
> > aren't careful. Once you and Gruff have put enough rubber on the road
> > it becomes pretty clear the differences still have a rubber base. We
> > are finding deep biologies of consensus amongst animals and no doubt
> > we are all doing our 'waggle dances'.
> > There is a fairly deep theory developed from Melanie Klein and Freud's
> > 'Civilization and Its Discontents' (more or less - it's small book, my
> > eyes fade on the exact title). The suggestion here is that we should
> > opt for a "depressive position" in life (it's a bit of a mess, we
> > should cut our cloth etc.) but end up in the "paranoid-schizoid"
> > position, demonising others as enemies. My own guess on this is that
> > it works institutionally and that groupthink is a key to the madness
> > of our politics. I have no doubt now we are dealing with
> > pathologies. I also believe a key element in traditional anarchism is
> > pathological. It has the slogan 'all truth lies in the main
> > destruction' - broadly that society itself is crap and smashing it
> > will sort things out. This bit is actually OK with me at times - I'd
> > have blown Parliament up yesterday (preferably with a raspberry-
> > bomb). What then emerges is the pathology, not the fictional,
> > wonderful, peaceful ..zzzz.. human. As Gruff pointed out somewhere,
> > we even need a panoply of rules to cross the road. Many people, quite
> > rightly on history, think anarchy is just the rule of the beast.
> > There's an old joke in which the officer insists the squaddie salutes
> > him. The grunt refuses and is told he must salute the uniform. 'You
> > take it off and I'll salute it', says the grunt. There may be
> > something about institution that is OK and only screwed by the gets
> > who use legitimate authority for illegitimate reasons.
> > My own view is that we should generally have some grok of what we want
> > to build before we tear stuff down - though this isn't more than a
> > rule-of-thumb. The British Parliament just needs a bomb - we need to
> > know how unimportant it has become by hardly noticing that it has
> > gone. Many 'institutions' are concealed. We don't 'fuck, shit
> > bastard' much in here, though as 'anarchists' (pages of argument here
> > that the logo 'anarchista' is so much more cool?) we should as there
> > is an institution there to attack and even the precedent of Orwell's
> > 1984 in which our honest toil makes it impossible to speak to the
> > politicians without honestly 'fucking them off'. I think I can argue
> > that 'bad language' holds some keys in the analysis of how we are
> > institutionalised. Its prohibition excludes huge numbers of people
> > from diplomacy. Anyone else, incidentally, a fan of 'Deadwood' in
> > which bad language is raised back to the Shakespearian fine-art now so
> > denuded and polite in order to appeal to middle-class nerks dressed as
> > upper-class turds? Anyone else watching 'The Thick of It'?
> > My brother, something of a scholar of the Spanish Civil War, points
> > out that the anarchists really did go on holiday en masse when it was
> > time to go over the top. They also fought with mad courage. Some of
> > the US anarchists were hung after years of legal pisswitter, for
> > refusing to take part in WW1 (what relevance has this capitalist war
> > got to us?). Courageous English Jews managed to have conscientious
> > objection to fighting the war against Hitler and were not hung (even
> > by their own). Israel is using religion to get its own to fight.
> > We may all be capable to some sort of polite pretence on anarchy Orn.
> > Underlying this phoney crud (from which many make money) is a
> > biological institution that we need to understand and be able to
> > control. Animals are autopoetic; there is no bee without the hive.
> > Pack dogs create alphas and omegas without great literature. Ants
> > take 'slaves' with no great moral posing, Kharzei (definitely Khazi)
> > promises to expunge the stain of corruption and is barking. I'd even
> > guess there are biological human defaults. The first questions for
> > anarchy might well lie in what it is we want to build, which suggests
> > anarchy as a tool in thought, not a way to be. Even postmodernism is
> > supposed to 'pre-date' modernism, come postmodo before we structure.
> > On 3 Nov, 08:09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > “…I take a guess too that anarchy is actually genetically impossible
Very well put Vam. The term 'biology' is pretty badly understood
generally though. I would say this is now the key and missed issue in
many debates. Biology doesn't 'doom' us to behave in particular ways
- there is quite massive divergence in the human species despite out
genetic similarity. However, even in the case of identical twins, one
of them tends to dominate in the wonb and be first born, usually with
a more outgoing temperament than the other that lasts through life.
We should not under-rate the biology through general ignorance and the
dangerous knowledge of knowing a little. Bird flock-flight is more
complex than Orn supposes, though the notion of a revolution coming is
very welcome. In computing there are defaults - one can choose to set
other basics. I think there are problems with what humans default to
if aspects of the easy morality by which most live are crumbled away.
Biology gives us good clues to the good and bad. We do not cut it
away (the biology), but can learn to cope and do things differently,
feel differently about what we do as we change. It might be worth
remembering here that Reason has drives as strong as biology.
I am not pleased to be swamped by Slip's Kahunas Orn - though possibly
less 'annoyed' than he must be to lose them. Good to hear you utter
bollox. Chomsky can sound just like a 'downsizer' and is not much of
an organisation or anti-organisation theorist. Steeplejacks here
began to specialise in wrecking chimenys (argh!), but all these brick
institutions have gone, so have the steeplejacks. That many human
organisatons look just the same is a momument to lack of human
creativity and I hardly want to trust to a waking, once droned bunch
of creative anarchists arising from soma.
The questioning is fine, and thought experiments can be conducted on
where things can lead. Some of the structrues involved are physical,
others clearly man-made in some other stuff and hopefully unmakeable.
It is the Phoenix one wants to rise from the ashes, not Judge Dread.
We don't want to let a Napoleon raise the puppies either. Spray
gonads in my direction if you must (did Slip give his permission?),
but don't sacrifice the majority in another hopeless cause against the
trained mercenaries of the Establishment - they will just put you on
show in their zoo at feeding time.
Our institutions aren't working and probably never did, though we
oldies may look back because jobs and work we easy to get. Only a
revolution will do, but there is no revolution in most 'revolution' -
a beggar on foot is lashed by an officer on horse and in the 180
degree turn the beggars merely change places. Even after the victory
in the Peasants' Revolt, Wat Tyler trusted the King and got stabbed in
the back. He was too caught in the old etiquette and politesse. We
should already be on the streets as a populace, but biology again has
us incumbent (a bee term) for this is its default in humans. There
is, in fact, nothing much to argue about here, but you find ways in
this commune of egoists!
Slip - can you grow any more gonads? The Arabs pay a high price ...
On 3 Nov, 15:03, gruff <trader...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "... On Nov 3, 1:09 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote: ..."
> > One last small reflection: Anarchy as I’ve been presenting it and as I
> > understand Noam to use the term is a process…an attitude that is a
> > constant skepticism of institutions…the process is a never ending
> > questioning of their existence. This seems all to possible for us.
> Now that's a process and attitude I can agree with and I'm sorry if it
> was presented earlier in our discussion/argument and I missed it.
> Perhaps it was too veiled to be discernible by my mind's eye.
> I have been a skeptic of institutions, behavior, intentions and
> everything else in the human basket of goodies for some time.
Perhaps its just that I don't accept it in the way you present it.
You finally stated your view of anarchy in a manner and form with
which I can agree -- i.e., constant skepticism.
On Nov 3, 1:00 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
