Re: politics and polarity

[Guest guest]

> One is not naive about such things. But hypocrisy is the homage

paid by vice to virtue, and even that is a step in the right

direction. One o the

> worst things, imo, to come out of the sixties was the widespread

acceptance of the notion that " honesty " and " authenticity " are

unqualiied goods, and

> hypocrisy an unqualified evil. I'll take a little hypocrisy any day.

Hello,

I am new to this group and spent a little time tonight reading the

posts. There were so many - but this one caught my attention - as I

was thinking about the sixties as I drove home this afternoon.

And what I wanted to say was that one of the worst things to come out

of the sixties - which was not the fault of those who lived out the

times - is the acceptance of moral relativism as an actual basis for

social development. The moral relativism of the sixties was grounded

in an intellectual realisation of the basic human being, of the

recognition of natural absolutes in human behaviour. It was a conceit

used to show the grey suited brigade how others might behave if they

continued their outrageous fascist style of government. It was never

meant to be a way of behaviour. But the seventies brought the

children of the revolution to the fore and lo and behold they took

the intellectual and philosophical ideas of the sixties

intelligentsia and made them into a way of life.

Now we have moral relativism as a perfectly acceptable way of dealing

with the world - no more apparent than within the media and

government.

What Mr Watkins says here no doubt represents a different class of

objection to absolutist notions of honesty and hypocrisy - but what I

wanted to say was that you cannot blame the intelligentsia of the

sixties for such an end result.

I do not know how old Mr Watkins is, but I do know that what he

suggests here is totally at odds with the climate or thinking of

those who lived through the " revolution " . I was there, and if we had

been able to see the true hypocrisy, that is, what the coming

generation would do to our beliefs and hard held notions, how they

would turn them into a relativistic and hypocritical method of

maintaining or contolling public opinion and awareness, then we ought

to have never tried to " show the world " how life might be. We ought

to have become another underground - like our forefathers of the

early fifties.

What I really need to know is, when is hypocrisy validated - if not

within a relativist notion of social engineering? How can anyone

speak of hypocrisy as if it were a " necessary evil " .

Graham

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/04 10:40:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

I prefer " prudentialist. "

For insurance purposes?

:}

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Graham,

You wrote:

>

> > One is not naive about such things. But hypocrisy is the homage

> paid by vice to virtue, and even that is a step in the right

> direction. One o the

> > worst things, imo, to come out of the sixties was the widespread

> acceptance of the notion that " honesty " and " authenticity " are

> unqualiied goods, and

> > hypocrisy an unqualified evil. I'll take a little hypocrisy any day.

>

> Hello,

> I am new to this group and spent a little time tonight reading the

> posts. There were so many - but this one caught my attention - as I

> was thinking about the sixties as I drove home this afternoon.

>

> And what I wanted to say was that one of the worst things to come out

> of the sixties - which was not the fault of those who lived out the

> times - is the acceptance of moral relativism as an actual basis for

> social development. The moral relativism of the sixties was grounded

> in an intellectual realisation of the basic human being, of the

> recognition of natural absolutes in human behaviour. It was a conceit

> used to show the grey suited brigade how others might behave if they

> continued their outrageous fascist style of government. It was never

> meant to be a way of behaviour. But the seventies brought the

> children of the revolution to the fore and lo and behold they took

> the intellectual and philosophical ideas of the sixties

> intelligentsia and made them into a way of life.

Yes.

>

> Now we have moral relativism as a perfectly acceptable way of dealing

> with the world - no more apparent than within the media and

> government.

> What Mr Watkins says here no doubt represents a different class of

> objection to absolutist notions of honesty and hypocrisy - but what I

> wanted to say was that you cannot blame the intelligentsia of the

> sixties for such an end result.

I can. Ideas have consequences, as you rightly note above. Philosophers, imo,

have a duty to watch what they say - and perhaps " intellectuals " even

more so. Otherwise, there might be a bowl of hemlock with their name on it, and

not without some justification either. Athens had a point.

>

> I do not know how old Mr Watkins is, but I do know that what he

> suggests here is totally at odds with the climate or thinking of

> those who lived through the " revolution " .

I was born in 1957. I am old enough to remember the 60's " counterculture, " but

not really old enough to have participated. By the time I was of the

age to be interested, the hippy thing was about over and the " me decade " had

begun. Of course, I still liked women, booze, cars, and rock-and-roll, as

young men will, but by that time our youthful hedonism was no longer dressed up

(hypocritically, one might say) as part of an idealistic " revolution. "

It was back to just young people doing what they will do if allowed to (which,

imo now, they shouldn't be).

> I was there, and if we had

> been able to see the true hypocrisy, that is, what the coming

> generation would do to our beliefs and hard held notions, how they

> would turn them into a relativistic and hypocritical method of

> maintaining or contolling public opinion and awareness, then we ought

> to have never tried to " show the world " how life might be.

With due respect to the man you were, people in their teens and twenties don't

know anything. How could they even think that they could solve the

world's problems? (I guess I answered my own question - because they don't know

anything. Which suggests that the true failure was with the elders,

and more specifically with the permissiveness in child-rearing that was the fad

in the forties and fifties.)

> We ought

> to have become another underground - like our forefathers of the

> early fifties.

>

> What I really need to know is, when is hypocrisy validated - if not

> within a relativist notion of social engineering? How can anyone

> speak of hypocrisy as if it were a " necessary evil " .

How can anyone not? One can, I think, if one considers the very real dark side

of the human soul. (Except that, if it's necessary, it's not really

evil, I suppose. Is water evil? Is defecation? Is death? Naturally not.)

I don't know exactly what " social engineering " means here, but if it means that

people need to be ruled, and that the more wise must rule the less

wise, and that perfect probity is not always a ruler's virtue - even if it is a

philosopher's virtue - then I guess that there is not much of a case

to be made *against* " social engineering. "

Regards,

Dan Watkins

" You say you'll change the institution,

Well, you know,

You'd better free your mind instead. "

The Beatles (OK, so even a blind pig finds an acorn once in

a while)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Graham, Dan,

I wish for but may not receive necessary details as a follow-up to

this inquiry.

Graham:The moral relativism of the sixties was grounded in an

intellectual realisation of the basic human being, of the recognition

of natural absolutes in human behaviour.

By whom? Who accomplished this project? At what moment in the history

of ideas did this come be finalized?

The assumptions hiding here strike me as weird. " moral relativism, "

is a set of ideas enshrined exactly where and by whom? Likewise,

" natural absolutes in human behavior " are to be found exactly where?

Who came up with them? When? And if you can answer this question,

might we subject any particular absolute to a rigorous demonstration

of their absoluteness and thus absolute validity?

(Moral absolutism has a long history and is not a monolithic notion.

Likewise with relativism. f/e Protagoras.)

***

G:It was never meant to be a way of behaviour.

In what way is any notion of morality *not* concerned with human behavior?

G:But the seventies brought the children of the revolution to the

fore and lo and behold they took the intellectual and philosophical

ideas of the sixties intelligentsia and made them into a way of life.

Who did this? What was the mode of transmission? If you can answer my

initial questions then the ensuing history of how it is 'the children

of the revolution+, " took ideas " could be addressed.

+(question begging: what revolution? when? against what and led by whom?)

***

G:What Mr Watkins says here no doubt represents a different class of

objection to absolutist notions of honesty and hypocrisy.

Watkins is a relativist as far as lying and many other immoralities go.

***

The psyche, per Jung, is relational, dynamic, spectral, creative,

entangled. It is in relation, is relative, to its being and becoming.

(If it isn't, then psychological absolutes would exist and could be

known.)

It's flux, and, thus, its praxis can't -usually- be absolute. We

don't speak of unchanging opposites, we speak of the tension between

opposites. Illimitability imposes a relativity of relationships, even

if it cannot be demonstrated that it is absolutely so.

If you investigate the core of human nature, contrary to the idea

that there is an absolute realm one could stop at, there is the step

further one can always take. Vastness.

imo

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

SC wrote:

>

>

> Watkins is a relativist as far as lying and many other immoralities go.

>

I prefer " prudentialist. "

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice,

Precisely :-).

Regards,

Dan

IonaDove@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/26/04 10:40:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> dwatkins5@... writes:

> I prefer " prudentialist. "

> For insurance purposes?

>

> :}

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Dear Mr. Graham,

Just " Graham " . If I offended in some way by calling you Mr Watkins,

please understand I was trying to be polite. I will call you Dan in

future if this is ok.

You said: I can. Ideas have consequences, as you rightly note above.

Philosophers, imo, have a duty to watch what they say - and

perhaps " intellectuals " even

> more so. Otherwise, there might be a bowl of hemlock with their

name on it, and not without some justification either. Athens had a

point.

LOL. I see your point. You seem to be suggesting that those who can

or do " think " are in some way dangerous?

Yes - we were " dangerous " to the hypocrites who ruled the towns and

states in the sixties. But that was their perception. And how did

they react? Initially with violence and a need to maintain the grey

suited status quo. But what happened in the end was a reversal of

sorts - and this was my point - that those who rule now are much more

subtle, they smile as they lie, knowing that you know they are lying,

and knowing that they can cast a notion a certain way and it seems

like truth or at least " right " in certain aspects to a majority of

the unthinking population. The so called " weapons of mass

destruction " excuse for making war upon Iraq, for instance. This is

what I called moral relativism. Such ways were never espoused by

those who merely wished to see the hypocrisy and the bigotry of the

fifties shown up for what it was.

> I was born in 1957. I am old enough to remember the

60's " counterculture, " but not really old enough to have

participated. By the time I was of the

age to be interested, the hippy thing was about over and the " me

decade " had begun. Of course, I still liked women, booze, cars, and

rock-and-roll, as

> young men will, but by that time our youthful hedonism was no

longer dressed up (hypocritically, one might say) as part of an

idealistic " revolution. "

It wasn't all " hippyness " . There were some real people out there, and

there was a real upwelling of feeling within the young at the time. I

think it is wrong to bracket the whole together without recognition

of what comprised the whole " Sixties " movement.

> It was back to just young people doing what they will do if allowed

to (which, imo now, they shouldn't be).

But this is as things have always been. Nothing to do with the

sixties particularly. You speak as if you were one of the puritans of

the fifties, full of grey suited noddings and harumphs on the one

hand, yet unwilling to allow that perhaps such outer moralism is a

result of a privately debauched nature. Many things hide under a air

of moral outrage.

> With due respect to the man you were, people in their teens and

twenties don't know anything. How could they even think that they

could solve the

> world's problems? (I guess I answered my own question - because

they don't know anything. Which suggests that the true failure was

with the elders,

> and more specifically with the permissiveness in child-rearing that

was the fad in the forties and fifties.)

Permissiveness? I suggest to you that some (not all by any means) of

the the sixties reaction was " against " the controlling and

hyopocritical nature of child rearing of previous times. Not so much

the behaviour of the parents as the entire idea of how

children " ought " to be treated and " ought " to behave. And mainly

because of those attitudes such as your own. (Mind you - I seem to be

getting a picture of someone with tongue firmly in cheek here. Nobody

who speaks the things you say of yourself could hold such a

determined reactionary position without some very personal reason,

surely?)

> I don't know exactly what " social engineering " means here, but if

it means that people need to be ruled, and that the more wise must

rule the less

> wise, and that perfect probity is not always a ruler's virtue -

even if it is a philosopher's virtue - then I guess that there is not

much of a case

> to be made *against* " social engineering. "

I was not speaking of " government " . I was referring to the whole

modern notion that what one portrays to the world via the television

screen and the arts and even the sciences is " adjusted " to suit a

particular point of view - one which is relative only to the unspoken

desires of those who control such things - essentially for profit or

to maintain a particular philosophy of control.

In this regard, as I said, the sixties failed - its ideas were used

to bolster a status quo now even more evil than the one which

preceded it.

> Regards,

>

> Dan Watkins

>

> " You say you'll change the institution,

> Well, you know,

> You'd better free your mind instead. "

>

> The Beatles (OK, so even a blind pig finds an

acorn once in a while)

Truffles, Dan. Even a blind pig can find a truffle.

and regards to you,

Graham

[Guest guest]

Hey, whoa there, .

You are a real six guns at twenty paces kind of guy, aren't you?

I was just musing and telling it as I thought it. Just as it went

through my mind while I was on my way home. I didn't expect to be

tested on my own ideas. Heck, I don't know what you want. I'm not

really into this college style " argumentative piece " type of thing.

After reading your post and Dan Watkins post I wondered if I hadn't

fallen into someplace between the devil and the deep blue sea. My

ideas are my own for sure. Maybe I have different ideas to others -

who knows?

But I don't want to get into any deep stuff about why I think what I

do and how I think what I do.

Or maybe that is not good enough here? Am I wrong?

Graham.

> Graham, Dan,

>

> I wish for but may not receive necessary details as a follow-up to

> this inquiry.

>

> Graham:The moral relativism of the sixties was grounded in an

> intellectual realisation of the basic human being, of the

recognition

> of natural absolutes in human behaviour.

>

> By whom? Who accomplished this project? At what moment in the

history

> of ideas did this come be finalized?

>

> The assumptions hiding here strike me as weird. " moral relativism, "

> is a set of ideas enshrined exactly where and by whom? Likewise,

> " natural absolutes in human behavior " are to be found exactly

where?

> Who came up with them? When? And if you can answer this question,

> might we subject any particular absolute to a rigorous

demonstration

> of their absoluteness and thus absolute validity?

>

> (Moral absolutism has a long history and is not a monolithic

notion.

> Likewise with relativism. f/e Protagoras.)

>

> ***

>

> G:It was never meant to be a way of behaviour.

>

> In what way is any notion of morality *not* concerned with human

behavior?

>

> G:But the seventies brought the children of the revolution to the

> fore and lo and behold they took the intellectual and philosophical

> ideas of the sixties intelligentsia and made them into a way of

life.

>

> Who did this? What was the mode of transmission? If you can answer

my

> initial questions then the ensuing history of how it is 'the

children

> of the revolution+, " took ideas " could be addressed.

>

> +(question begging: what revolution? when? against what and led by

whom?)

>

> ***

>

> G:What Mr Watkins says here no doubt represents a different class

of

> objection to absolutist notions of honesty and hypocrisy.

>

> Watkins is a relativist as far as lying and many other immoralities

go.

>

> ***

>

> The psyche, per Jung, is relational, dynamic, spectral, creative,

> entangled. It is in relation, is relative, to its being and

becoming.

> (If it isn't, then psychological absolutes would exist and could be

> known.)

>

> It's flux, and, thus, its praxis can't -usually- be absolute. We

> don't speak of unchanging opposites, we speak of the tension

between

> opposites. Illimitability imposes a relativity of relationships,

even

> if it cannot be demonstrated that it is absolutely so.

>

> If you investigate the core of human nature, contrary to the idea

> that there is an absolute realm one could stop at, there is the

step

> further one can always take. Vastness.

>

> imo

>

> regards,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey, whoa there, .

You are a real six guns at twenty paces kind of guy, aren't you?

I was just musing and telling it as I thought it. Just as it went

through my mind while I was on my way home. I didn't expect to be

tested on my own ideas. Heck, I don't know what you want. I'm not

really into this college style " argumentative piece " type of thing.

After reading your post and Dan Watkins post I wondered if I hadn't

fallen into someplace between the devil and the deep blue sea. My

ideas are my own for sure. Maybe I have different ideas to others -

who knows?

But I don't want to get into any deep stuff about why I think what I

do and how I think what I do.

Or maybe that is not good enough here? Am I wrong?

Graham.

> Graham, Dan,

>

> I wish for but may not receive necessary details as a follow-up to

> this inquiry.

>

> Graham:The moral relativism of the sixties was grounded in an

> intellectual realisation of the basic human being, of the

recognition

> of natural absolutes in human behaviour.

>

> By whom? Who accomplished this project? At what moment in the

history

> of ideas did this come be finalized?

>

> The assumptions hiding here strike me as weird. " moral relativism, "

> is a set of ideas enshrined exactly where and by whom? Likewise,

> " natural absolutes in human behavior " are to be found exactly

where?

> Who came up with them? When? And if you can answer this question,

> might we subject any particular absolute to a rigorous

demonstration

> of their absoluteness and thus absolute validity?

>

> (Moral absolutism has a long history and is not a monolithic

notion.

> Likewise with relativism. f/e Protagoras.)

>

> ***

>

> G:It was never meant to be a way of behaviour.

>

> In what way is any notion of morality *not* concerned with human

behavior?

>

> G:But the seventies brought the children of the revolution to the

> fore and lo and behold they took the intellectual and philosophical

> ideas of the sixties intelligentsia and made them into a way of

life.

>

> Who did this? What was the mode of transmission? If you can answer

my

> initial questions then the ensuing history of how it is 'the

children

> of the revolution+, " took ideas " could be addressed.

>

> +(question begging: what revolution? when? against what and led by

whom?)

>

> ***

>

> G:What Mr Watkins says here no doubt represents a different class

of

> objection to absolutist notions of honesty and hypocrisy.

>

> Watkins is a relativist as far as lying and many other immoralities

go.

>

> ***

>

> The psyche, per Jung, is relational, dynamic, spectral, creative,

> entangled. It is in relation, is relative, to its being and

becoming.

> (If it isn't, then psychological absolutes would exist and could be

> known.)

>

> It's flux, and, thus, its praxis can't -usually- be absolute. We

> don't speak of unchanging opposites, we speak of the tension

between

> opposites. Illimitability imposes a relativity of relationships,

even

> if it cannot be demonstrated that it is absolutely so.

>

> If you investigate the core of human nature, contrary to the idea

> that there is an absolute realm one could stop at, there is the

step

> further one can always take. Vastness.

>

> imo

>

> regards,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Graham, all,

Hiya. You write,

>G:Hey, whoa there, .

>

>You are a real six guns at twenty paces kind of guy, aren't you?

Yeah, I am. Actually, I usually try to leave my guns behind when I

come to the jung-fire, but, in this case I forgot to think about

where I was first. Also, this being true is symptomatic of my fragile

self-control. As Jung suggested in another context, my six guns have

a tendency to go off whether necessarily or not.

>G:But I don't want to get into any deep stuff about why I think what I

>do and how I think what I do.

>

>Or maybe that is not good enough here? Am I wrong?

We're all 'suiting ourselves,' (pun intended).

***

It is my nature, in respect of my vast prejudices, to scrape away at

stuff. I read your riff with interest. If its okay for me to suggest

that it is a polemic, then I would wish to see what's underneath it.

Yes, the " why? " and the " how? " (and: what are the details?!) are good

scraping implements.

I did receive the import of what you think on this bit of history.

Even in generalities for which the particulars are hidden, just as an

exterior hides the framework and the life inside a house, I got the

message.

Yet, I'm, again by my nature, much more interested in how somebody's

thinking gets to be how it is than the presumed veracity of its

content. In fact, I tend to withhold judgement until I have some idea

of what is hidden or working in the background. No doubt I make

mistakes of comprehension on both levels no matter what the data is.

***

For example, I would wonder about how it is specific events and

ascertainments of intention, and ideas behind intentions, work to

effect the movement of groups in the suggestive ways your assertions

presumably obviate.

More simply, the actual historical processes and events through which

ideas are transmitted and cause intentions, left not spoken of in

your statements, would tend to be evidence of the soundness of your

interpretation; partly or wholly. Then, estimations of veracity would

follow.

***

I do have two comments on your statements. I would agree to some

extent with Dan. I was in the last wave of the counter-culture, (18

in 1972,) and nothing in my experience suggests to me that my

youthful brethren were particularly motivated by what " a way of

behavior " might promote. In other words, we didn't know much about

what we were doing and why.

Secondly, I would not the difference between cultural thought forms

that decenter versus forms which re-center or provide an alternative

center. The most remarkable feature in this respect I already

mentioned.

More surprising is the wish to back to the late 19th century, held by

some as the last era when most people knew their place and what was

owed to those they depended upon. If we allow for the general impulse

of your own sense, the question then is: how does this reactionary

motive fit into your schema.

I like what Dan suggests in another context, 'what didn't kill it,

made it stronger'.

Lots of grist for psychological views too. (For example, what might

we say about the last gasp of the baronies of white males being the

melting away of the permafrost and ice caps?)

:-)

welcome aboard

***

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Graham,

b8222002 wrote:

>

> > Dear Mr. Graham,

>

> Just " Graham " . If I offended in some way by calling you Mr Watkins,

> please understand I was trying to be polite. I will call you Dan in

> future if this is ok.

Not at all. " Dan " is just fine.

>

>

> You said: I can. Ideas have consequences, as you rightly note above.

> Philosophers, imo, have a duty to watch what they say - and

> perhaps " intellectuals " even

> > more so. Otherwise, there might be a bowl of hemlock with their

> name on it, and not without some justification either. Athens had a

> point.

>

> LOL. I see your point. You seem to be suggesting that those who can

> or do " think " are in some way dangerous?

Yes. It is not only I who suggest it. Jung makes the point as well, esp. in

respect to alchemy.

>

> Yes - we were " dangerous " to the hypocrites who ruled the towns and

> states in the sixties. But that was their perception. And how did

> they react? Initially with violence and a need to maintain the grey

> suited status quo. But what happened in the end was a reversal of

> sorts - and this was my point - that those who rule now are much more

> subtle, they smile as they lie, knowing that you know they are lying,

> and knowing that they can cast a notion a certain way and it seems

> like truth or at least " right " in certain aspects to a majority of

> the unthinking population. The so called " weapons of mass

> destruction " excuse for making war upon Iraq, for instance.

I don't think that this was a lie. Too many people with disparate interests

would have had to agree on the lie, with full knowledge that the truth

would come out in a few months anyway. I think that Bush and co. were fully

convinced that they would find WMD's, and are perplexed and chagrined that

they have not. I know that I did, and am. That is not to say that they didn't

exaggerate the evidence somewhat in order to whip up support for the

war, but that is imo not the same thing. In any event, all's well that end's

well.

> This is

> what I called moral relativism. Such ways were never espoused by

> those who merely wished to see the hypocrisy and the bigotry of the

> fifties shown up for what it was.

>

> > I was born in 1957. I am old enough to remember the

> 60's " counterculture, " but not really old enough to have

> participated. By the time I was of the

> age to be interested, the hippy thing was about over and the " me

> decade " had begun. Of course, I still liked women, booze, cars, and

> rock-and-roll, as

> > young men will, but by that time our youthful hedonism was no

> longer dressed up (hypocritically, one might say) as part of an

> idealistic " revolution. "

>

> It wasn't all " hippyness " . There were some real people out there, and

> there was a real upwelling of feeling within the young at the time. I

> think it is wrong to bracket the whole together without recognition

> of what comprised the whole " Sixties " movement.

Is there really anything to it beyond wild youth high on idealism? In the USA,

you also had the wish to avoid the draft, of course.

>

>

> > It was back to just young people doing what they will do if allowed

> to (which, imo now, they shouldn't be).

>

> But this is as things have always been. Nothing to do with the

> sixties particularly. You speak as if you were one of the puritans of

> the fifties, full of grey suited noddings and harumphs on the one

> hand, yet unwilling to allow that perhaps such outer moralism is a

> result of a privately debauched nature. Many things hide under a air

> of moral outrage.

I agree with this paragraph in its entirety. I would only add that many thing

hidden are well hidden, and that their revelation is not a good thing.

>

>

> > With due respect to the man you were, people in their teens and

> twenties don't know anything. How could they even think that they

> could solve the

> > world's problems? (I guess I answered my own question - because

> they don't know anything. Which suggests that the true failure was

> with the elders,

> > and more specifically with the permissiveness in child-rearing that

> was the fad in the forties and fifties.)

>

> Permissiveness? I suggest to you that some (not all by any means) of

> the the sixties reaction was " against " the controlling and

> hyopocritical nature of child rearing of previous times. Not so much

> the behaviour of the parents as the entire idea of how

> children " ought " to be treated and " ought " to behave. And mainly

> because of those attitudes such as your own.

Again, all true, but the reaction was a bad one. To rebel against the idea that

children ought to behave in certain ways and not in others is to rebel

against civilization itself. Children are born as ruthless savages. It is up to

adults to make them semi-fit for the parlor. The grey-flanneled

hypocrites were (relatively) correct, and the rebelling " flower children, " with

their romanticized notion of nature, were quite wrong. I would say

that Rousseau was wrong, but because he was always lying, it's hard to know what

he really thought. Suffice it to say that his romanticism as

presented in the surface texts was mischievous and wrong.

> (Mind you - I seem to be

> getting a picture of someone with tongue firmly in cheek here. Nobody

> who speaks the things you say of yourself could hold such a

> determined reactionary position without some very personal reason,

> surely?)

My determined reactionary position is based on personal experiences, and reading

(including some of the works of CGJ). I may be wrong about some

things, but have nothing " personal " to gain from it - I'm not running for office

in a rightwing district, or anything.

>

>

> > I don't know exactly what " social engineering " means here, but if

> it means that people need to be ruled, and that the more wise must

> rule the less

> > wise, and that perfect probity is not always a ruler's virtue -

> even if it is a philosopher's virtue - then I guess that there is not

> much of a case

> > to be made *against* " social engineering. "

>

> I was not speaking of " government " . I was referring to the whole

> modern notion that what one portrays to the world via the television

> screen and the arts and even the sciences is " adjusted " to suit a

> particular point of view - one which is relative only to the unspoken

> desires of those who control such things - essentially for profit or

> to maintain a particular philosophy of control.

> In this regard, as I said, the sixties failed - its ideas were used

> to bolster a status quo now even more evil than the one which

> preceded it.

Yes. I won't deny a certain shiver of schadenfreude (since I, too, have all the

savage caveman instincts, just as Jung says) when I hear Led Zeppelin

tunes used to sell Cadillac SUV's :-). Serves 'em right.

Regards,

Dan

" Been a long time since I rock-and-rolled,

Been a long time since I did The Stroll.... "

Led Zeppelin

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, .

I'll have a try at your post - perhaps you are not such a hard guy

after all. I appreciate the time you spent in your answer. Maybe I

was a bit caught of balance by your first reactions.

In my work I am mostly a hunching " go with the flow " kind of guy who

gets there in the end. I try mostly to listen to my feelings about

things. If it " feels " right to me, then it usually pans out to be the

truth. But hey, that's just the way it is with me. I appreciate some

others might need to understand the guts of a thing first. I never

had that need. " Intuitive " is I believe the type I am.

You said,

> For example, I would wonder about how it is specific events and

> ascertainments of intention, and ideas behind intentions, work to

> effect the movement of groups in the suggestive ways your

assertions

> presumably obviate.

Now you got me confused a little. " Obviate " means to negate or

denature. So the first part of your para seems to be talking about

what lies beneath what I said and then you say that what I said

obviates these things. I suspect that you meant " made obvious " or

was " exampled " within my words. But if you reaaly meant " obviate "

then you are going to have to explain this para so I understand it

better. Sorry. I am a bit of a simpleton when it comes to language -

that is why I have to understand each word very carefully. Another

problem of being an impulsive type I guess. I had to learn how

to " think " in words and even though I can write well enough, I find I

have a very hard time trying to say anything in " deep " words.

> More simply, the actual historical processes and events through

which

> ideas are transmitted and cause intentions, left not spoken of in

> your statements, would tend to be evidence of the soundness of your

> interpretation; partly or wholly. Then, estimations of veracity

would

> follow.

Now I understand this well enough. The problem is that all

the things that you are talking about here lie within a consistent

stream of conscious existence - like a continuing story which has

never been " edited " or " took apart " . All my feelings and ideas and

home truths are like they are embedded in this cake of life, and I

find it very hard to take one thing out and examine it without it

sort of becoming a meaningless kind of statement. It seems to me that

what " causes intentions " is a hidden sort of thing - a general

feeling or upwelling as I said. The intentions seem to come from

beneath, from a place you can't put into words. In regard to the

times we were speaking of - its sort of like a movie, where things

slowly overtake the actors and they begin to change. The fifties was

like that - there was something " underneath us " and that something

made a whole lot of the things on the outside sound or look " bad " or

artificial. But how I could define these things for you is very hard

to do, for me at least.

> I do have two comments on your statements. I would agree to some

> extent with Dan. I was in the last wave of the counter-culture, (18

> in 1972,) and nothing in my experience suggests to me that my

> youthful brethren were particularly motivated by what " a way of

> behavior " might promote. In other words, we didn't know much about

> what we were doing and why.

I see what you mean. I only said that there were many who " felt "

there was something, and in a way it made us feel that we were doing

something important. The sex, drug and rock scene was just a sort of

outside layer, a way of coping with the real confrontation we had

with the whole way of life we had come to feel as wrong.

> Secondly, I would not the difference between cultural thought forms

> that decenter versus forms which re-center or provide an

alternative

> center.

I catch this one. And I think it represents my point that

the " alternative cenering " you mention here never happened, but that

the rising stars of the seventies, the always grey suited " born to

rule " types you find in business and governemnt everywhere simply

found a way of converting the sixties mindset into a cultural shift

which maintained the status quo in their favour. It even allowed them

a greater ability to be " good liars " .

> More surprising is the wish to back to the late 19th century, held

by

> some as the last era when most people knew their place and what was

> owed to those they depended upon. If we allow for the general

impulse

> of your own sense, the question then is: how does this reactionary

> motive fit into your schema.

Now you got me . I don't understand this para at all. Why

would I want to go back to the 19th century? It seems to me that even

the 21st century needs a whole lot of sugar added. I would rather go

back to 1969. Where did I say about going back to such a time? God

help us if we ever have to suffer through such a time again. I have

read a lot about those years. History only records the genteel parts,

the bits the grey suits want you to think was wonderful. The truth

was very different. The ordinarty person was just a brick in the

wall, a grunt, a slave of the rich. Perhaps not so much in America,

but in the Empire as it was then, the ordinary person was lucky to

have a new set of clothes once a year and the whole family had to

work to survive. No I don't think I would like to go back to the

nineteenth century. Some of the greatest people on earth lived or

were born in that era, but they were the " few " . For ordinary folk

like me, life was just a grinding hell from birth to death.

> I like what Dan suggests in another context, 'what didn't kill it,

> made it stronger'.

Well this is a pretty easy statement to make at any rate. It fits in

with the notion of evolution. But it is also reminding me of the way

things were when I was young. Sort of like, what you did to us didn't

kill us, and yes it made us stronger, and it made us hate you. Who

wants a world built upon hate? Actually this idea offends me very

much, because I know its power and how it can create a twisted and

veangful group culture.

One of the reasons why I still lie awake at night and wish I could go

back and perform horrible acts of veangeance upon certain people.

Yes, they made me strong, but I pay for this strength in other ways.

I am no jesus freak, but what about love - where was love when you

just needed it? I wonder if Dan can understand this.

> Lots of grist for psychological views too. (For example, what might

> we say about the last gasp of the baronies of white males being the

> melting away of the permafrost and ice caps?)

This one was a rocket , went right over my head. Sorry.

thanks for the reply,

Graham

[Guest guest]

Hi, Dan.

> Yes. It is not only I who suggest it. Jung makes the point as well,

esp. in respect to alchemy.

Can you explain this? I thought alchmists wre mostly considered to be

writers of hidden knowledge. How might they have been dangerous? Or

have I missed the point?

> I don't think that this was a lie. Too many people with disparate

interests would have had to agree on the lie, with full knowledge

that the truth

> would come out in a few months anyway. I think that Bush and co.

were fully convinced that they would find WMD's, and are perplexed

and chagrined that

> they have not.

Now here you are on ground I know at least a little about. What you

say is true to a certain extent - we didn't know that Iraq would not

have WMD's, but what we did know was that this was not the reason for

going to war in the first place, that WMD's was an excuse and

unfortunately a very lame one. But would the rest of the world have

sanctioned the true reason for the war in Iraq? I don't think so -

and " Bush and co " , by whom I expect you mean the US President and the

Prime Ministers of England, Spain and Australia, knew this perfectly

well. As it was, the rest of the world didn't sanction the Iraqi war

regardless, and in this case the end has not even justified the

means. The dominant political groups in Iraq might thank the US and

the rest for doing what they could not, but in the end Iraq will

remain a thorn in the side of the west, simply because it was never

the threat it was supposed to be - the real threat lies elsewhere -

but we have now made ambiguous our possible relationship with a

country and its people who might have been saved considerable

suffering and predjudice if we had attended to the problem in a

humanitarian way. Our bigotry has both saved and unsaved the day for

the Iraqi people I suspect. The politics of power has both won and

lost another round.

What I was saying in this was that such lies merely begat more lies

and trouble. And this was never the point of what the sixties

revolution was hoping to achieve. We wanted openess and honesty.

Naive I expect. But it must come eventually or things will just

continue to get worse

> Is there really anything to it beyond wild youth high on idealism?

In the USA, you also had the wish to avoid the draft, of course.

This is a bit cynical. Idealism has its roots in injustice I think.

And youth are the best ones to see the injustice in a society.

Perhaps not the best ones to govern it. But those who govern ought to

take note of that which youth sees. THis was the point. And it was

twisted, as I said. Politics is a twisting machine, and it is a self

preserving one. It has little to do with " good government. "

> I agree with this paragraph in its entirety. I would only add that

many thing hidden are well hidden, and that their revelation is not a

good thing.

So am I to hide my evil and you to hide yours and together we will

make a great nation? And teach our children to do the same? And at

the same time expect them to be the best people they can possibly be?

Sorry Dan, but I think you are way, way out of line here.

> Again, all true, but the reaction was a bad one. To rebel against

the idea that children ought to behave in certain ways and not in

others is to rebel

> against civilization itself.

Is there a time when " civilization " is corrupt at its heart? Is this

not the reason for some revolutions? I mean, is it possible that the

people see how bad things have become without this actually showing

on the surface, but coming up from underneath like a tide of sickness?

Children are born as ruthless savages. It is up to adults to make

them semi-fit for the parlor. The grey-flanneled

> hypocrites were (relatively) correct, and the rebelling " flower

children, " with their romanticized notion of nature, were quite wrong.

I am not so sure. Is not the " grey flannelled " approach to life just

as wrong? I see the point you are making, but there must be a medium.

What bothers me is that the so called " caring " society we have now

does not reflect the dreams of our youth, but is a sickening

falsehood where evil grows greater and so called " caring people " wind

themselves tighter in security blankets in fear of the nastiness they

have created. This was never the point.

I would say

> that Rousseau was wrong, but because he was always lying, it's hard

to know what he really thought. Suffice it to say that his

romanticism as

> presented in the surface texts was mischievous and wrong.

I don't know anything about this person. Only his name.

> My determined reactionary position is based on personal

experiences, and reading (including some of the works of CGJ). I may

be wrong about some

> things, but have nothing " personal " to gain from it - I'm not

running for office in a rightwing district, or anything.

Then would it be impertinent to ask you what you feel is to be gained

from your seemingly reactionary position? Will it work to make the

world, which is becomiong " nicer " in its complete nastyness and hyped

stupidity a better place?

I cannot help think that it won't be very long before the name

ministry of defence is changed to the ministry of peace. Soon

everything will be done in the name of " love " and it will be the most

hate driven culture we have ever seen. This is what I call the modern

hypocrisy.

> Yes. I won't deny a certain shiver of schadenfreude (since I, too,

have all the savage caveman instincts, just as Jung says) when I hear

Led Zeppelin

> tunes used to sell Cadillac SUV's :-). Serves 'em right.

When I hear Bach used to sell insurance policies or hamburgers I just

feel like screaming. Remember that film?

I do my own little bit to try to reverse the horrible turning of

events. Just as I guess your own ideas represent a reaction against

the way the world is. But I just think you have got the wrong people

as the target. How about calling the liars the liars? DO you not

believe that there is a natural human morality that ought not be

ignored?

Sorry Dan, I seem to have got carried away here,

regards to you in any case,

Graham

[Guest guest]

Graham,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, " make obvious " ; not negate. Woops, my

propensity to work from negation peaked through.

One idea I introduced was not a reading into your own ideas, but an

introduction of a second idea.

G: Why would I want to go back to the 19th century?

I didn't intend to attribute this to you by way of implication.

What I wonder about is why a person who does wish to go back to the

time of McKinley in a specific sense of 'going back' (Karl Rove

exemplifying this,) does wish to go back. Well, there are a few

reasons.

By the way, I'm an intuitive-feeling type too. But, as a form of my

own bias, I would tend to find notable what isn't said, (obviated?)

in support of broad brush kinds of statements.

However, Graham, you've kindly supplied enough context for me to let

go of this wish to know what details are 'underneath,' so-to-speak.

***

G:The problem is that all the things that you are talking

about here lie within a consistent stream of conscious existence -

like a continuing story which has never been " edited " or " took

apart " . All my feelings and ideas and home truths are like they are

embedded in this cake of life, and I find it very hard to take one

thing out and examine it without it sort of becoming a meaningless

kind of statement.

I like this very much. People, from one point of view, are narrative

kinds of beings. I do not know if we are close in age. Speaking for

myself, I could narrate with some accuracy what it was like to live

my own story back in those days of seeming 'revolution'. As far as

the ideas floating in my head, and, to some extent the intentions,

anybody who went through that era could produce a similar narrative;

presumably.

As far as a more general exercise goes, I would see the history of

ideas and its development from the reformation on, through the

enlightenment(s), and then through the fascinating critical tensions,

(especially between science and traditionalism(s), of the second half

of the 19th century as laying the groundwork for the simplistic, (but

not banal,) ideas which could be reduced to seemingly banal catch

phrases, phrases like " question authority, " " tune in, turn on, drop

out, " etc.

These ideas, when fleshed out, formulate sides of a very old

dialectic, between truth givers and truth questioners.

***

G:I only said that there were many who " felt " there was something,

and in a way it made us feel that we were doing something important.

We felt this importance. I do not feel, in the main, that 'we'

understood that we were a continuation of an older current. This is

interesting because I think in retrospect this becomes obvious. That

those days are seen as an eruption of something newfangled, as I see

it, is more a feature of that age's contemporary critics than it is

of some wisened participants in our own day.

G:And I think it represents my point that the " alternative centering "

you mention here never happened,

Actually, I would see the alternative centering as having been

partially successful. Some people wouldn't rail against the

counter-culture if its effects today were only a chimera.

G:but that the rising stars of the seventies, the always grey suited

" born to rule " types you find in business and government everywhere

simply found a way of converting the sixties mindset into a cultural

shift which maintained the status quo in their favour. It even

allowed them a greater ability to be " good liars " .

Here the details are important because where else might we learn

about those effects?

This seems over-generalized. We aren't back in the fifties, even if

one foot seems to have planted itself in a step backward. (In a

sense, one foot is always falling backward.) I spend some of my time

working in the field of business organizational behavior. In this

field, it has been thoroughly penetrated by 'psychological thinking'

and in this you see a remnant of the idea that belief systems are

various and that, when properly identified and implemented, they can

create a different reality. This is a sea-change.

In the fifties the principle business ethic was a relative of

mechanical (late 19th century idea wedded with the 'chain of being,')

conceptions of business organization. The cutting edge of a

countering psychological view begins, today, to depart from the

performative (output-only, material/profit-oriented,) model of

business organization.

If you scratch the thinkers behind these ideas, you often find that

they were hippies, or, at least, persons informed by the

counter-culture. (interesting...)

This is also true for elements of contemporary philosophy and

psychology. Art is another good example because it often represents

the leading edge.

***

At the same time, Graham, there were the forces this revolution was

up against. I think that the resulting " grey-suitedness " represents

more the conserving forces than it does the failure of the

counter-culture. Bush was never a hippie. Clinton was informed

by the counter-culture, and, he had his moment. Both 'sides' wrestle

today.

I can think of many types of current faultlines. (I wish the

interplay was more dialectical, or dialogical!) As Jung, a modernist,

understood, people today can strike up an individualized relationship

with the greater things and this is, on the surface, an example of

the sympathetic cast that imbues the idea that such an encounter is

imaginal, creative, erotic, and 'new age'. Of course, there is the

import too that one should question their own seeming egoistic

authority, as well as the collective authorities!

***

G:History only records the genteel parts, the bits the grey suits

want you to think was wonderful. The truth was very different. The

ordinary person was just a brick in the wall, a grunt, a slave of the

rich. Perhaps not so much in America, but in the Empire as it was

then, the ordinary person was lucky to have a new set of clothes once

a year and the whole family had to work to survive. No I don't think

I would like to go back to the nineteenth century. Some of the

greatest people on earth lived or were born in that era, but they

were the " few " . For ordinary folk like me, life was just a grinding

hell from birth to death.

Yes. The devil is in the details. I don't think it was quite as

grinding in every ordinary case as you make it out to be, but the

mechanization of industry and the concretization of the human element

into a rationalizable " part " in manufacturing was a stage history

passed through. Some people knew their place, but they didn't like it

very much. The counter-cultural current moved through that age too.

Not for nothing: Jms. Mill, Marx, , eau, Bentham, ,

Dewey, Roosevelt, etc. All of them riding older waves, (Montesquieu,

Tocqueville, Locke, J.S. Mill, etc. What was it Aristotle said about

the virtue of liberalism?)

Cycles...

***

G:Who wants a world built upon hate? Actually this idea offends me

very much, because I know its power and how it can create a twisted

and veangful group culture. One of the reasons why I still lie awake

at night and wish I could go back and perform horrible acts of

veangeance upon certain people. Yes, they made me strong, but I pay

for this strength in other ways.

Graham, if you want it both ways, I suggest, you'll have to enact

your core principles decisively and have it one way or the other.

Huntington has recently proposed the idea of American Civilization

and this has warranted his suggestion that the 21st century will be

defined by its victory or defeat. I haven't read his full argument,

but we see in Iraq today the makings of a Democracy without

democratic principles guided by the liberal idea that a tyranny of

the majority won't serve our own interests. Ironic...

***

S:Lots of grist for psychological views too. (For example, what might

we say about the last gasp of the baronies of white males being the

melting away of the permafrost and ice caps?)

G:This one was a rocket , went right over my head. Sorry.

Intentions, thus actions, have their consequences. If a broad

faultline is, today, between the anti-scientism of discreteness of

actions, (consequences are unimportant, magic/superstition, will save

us,) and the scientistic view that consequences are inevitable

because of abiding and irrevocable interrelationships, (f/e, Jung's

" the guns will start going off by themselves, " ) then the magical

thinking of this gasping white guy corporate aristocracy, (19th c.

redux,) will remain compensated by the ongoing, creative, messy,

counter-culture.

Comments?

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Graham,

b8222002 wrote:

>

>

>Hi, Dan.

>

>

>

>>Yes. It is not only I who suggest it. Jung makes the point as well,

>>

>>

>esp. in respect to alchemy.

>

>Can you explain this? I thought alchmists wre mostly considered to be

>writers of hidden knowledge. How might they have been dangerous? Or

>have I missed the point?

>

That's true. They were dangerous because the hidden knowledge the wrote

about was contra the dogma of the church, and had the potential to

weaken or even undermine the faith of the people and the power of the

church. Jung remarks somewhere that, had he lived and worked during the

middle ages, he would have been burned as a heretic. I feel compelled to

add that the church was not merely being selfish and power hungry in

enforcing the dogma and in persecuting doubters.

>

>

>

>>I don't think that this was a lie. Too many people with disparate

>>

>>

>interests would have had to agree on the lie, with full knowledge

>that the truth

>

>

>>would come out in a few months anyway. I think that Bush and co.

>>

>>

>were fully convinced that they would find WMD's, and are perplexed

>and chagrined that

>

>

>>they have not.

>>

>>

>

>Now here you are on ground I know at least a little about. What you

>say is true to a certain extent - we didn't know that Iraq would not

>have WMD's, but what we did know was that this was not the reason for

>going to war in the first place, that WMD's was an excuse and

>unfortunately a very lame one. But would the rest of the world have

>sanctioned the true reason for the war in Iraq? I don't think so -

>and " Bush and co " , by whom I expect you mean the US President and the

>Prime Ministers of England, Spain and Australia, knew this perfectly

>well. As it was, the rest of the world didn't sanction the Iraqi war

>regardless, and in this case the end has not even justified the

>means. The dominant political groups in Iraq might thank the US and

>the rest for doing what they could not, but in the end Iraq will

>remain a thorn in the side of the west, simply because it was never

>the threat it was supposed to be - the real threat lies elsewhere -

>but we have now made ambiguous our possible relationship with a

>country and its people who might have been saved considerable

>suffering and predjudice if we had attended to the problem in a

>humanitarian way.

>

How do you deal with a classic tyrant in an " humanitarian way, " when

power is all that tyrants understand and all they will ever understand?

Even Plato famously tried and failed. Tyrants are immune to philosophy.

Can you imagine how Stalin would have dealt with Ghandi? Someone would

have rid him of that troublesome priest.

I think that Iraq has been benefitted by the war, although benefitting

the Iraqis was not its primary purpose - I agree with you there. It was

waged, among other reasons, to establish a solid base of American power

- and a more reliable ally than the Saudis- in the middle east, to

ensure future oil supplies, and to give current and potential enemies

(including said Saudis) of western democracy a little salutary something

to think about.

>Our bigotry has both saved and unsaved the day for

>the Iraqi people I suspect. The politics of power has both won and

>lost another round.

>What I was saying in this was that such lies merely begat more lies

>and trouble. And this was never the point of what the sixties

>revolution was hoping to achieve. We wanted openess and honesty.

>

You can't have that, because your enemies will always exploit it.

Moderation in everything, even in honesty and openness, imo.

>Naive I expect. But it must come eventually or things will just

>continue to get worse

>

>

>

>>Is there really anything to it beyond wild youth high on idealism?

>>

>>

>In the USA, you also had the wish to avoid the draft, of course.

>

>This is a bit cynical.

>

Oh, I don't think so. The draft ended before the war, and with it most

of the protesting. Actually, I think the last major violent anti-war

protest was Kent State. I guess it stops being fun throwing rocks and

gasoline bombs at the cops once they start shooting back.

> Idealism has its roots in injustice I think.

>

I think that's true.

>And youth are the best ones to see the injustice in a society.

>

I think that's false. They may see injustice, but they do not see the

natural limits of justice, and hence fall into injustice themselves. I

believe that part of Plato's point in having Socrates construct the

" city in speech " in _The Republic_ was to say, in effect, " You think you

want perfect justice? Fine - this is what it would look like. Be careful

what you wish for. " Perfect justice = injustice. Young idealists don't

always understand this - I didn't.

>Perhaps not the best ones to govern it. But those who govern ought to

>take note of that which youth sees. THis was the point. And it was

>twisted, as I said. Politics is a twisting machine, and it is a self

>preserving one. It has little to do with " good government. "

>

>

>

>>I agree with this paragraph in its entirety. I would only add that

>>

>>

>many thing hidden are well hidden, and that their revelation is not a

>good thing.

>

>So am I to hide my evil and you to hide yours and together we will

>make a great nation?

>

At least a decent nation - and very possibly a great nation. It has been

done before. (Of course, I must add that a great nation will never reach

the level of goodness that a great individual might - a nation or even a

city can't be Socrates, or Jung, or Jesus.)

>And teach our children to do the same? And at

>the same time expect them to be the best people they can possibly be?

>

Only the naturally best are the potnetial best, if you see what I mean.

The rest of us are just the rest of us. The many will, imo, become

better through the guidance of the city - even if the city is a decent

totalitarian theocracy, as in the case of the medieval church - than if

left to their own devices. Leaving people to their own devices is what

happened to Rome, I think.

>

>Sorry Dan, but I think you are way, way out of line here.

>

>

>

>>Again, all true, but the reaction was a bad one. To rebel against

>>

>>

>the idea that children ought to behave in certain ways and not in

>others is to rebel

>

>

>>against civilization itself.

>>

>>

>

>Is there a time when " civilization " is corrupt at its heart?

>

Yes (and I believe that we are heading there, al Oz may be a few years

behind the USA in corruption)

> Is this

>not the reason for some revolutions?

>

Yes.

> I mean, is it possible that the

>people see how bad things have become without this actually showing

>on the surface, but coming up from underneath like a tide of sickness?

>

Things aren't that bad yet. Many of us don't know what bad is yet,

although some of us here do. But i believe that many more of us will

find out if we don't correct the mistakes that the modern liberal

democracies have been making for the past several decades. Europe acts

as though it *wants* to destroy itself, and the USA and Canada are not

much better.

>

>

> Children are born as ruthless savages. It is up to adults to make

>them semi-fit for the parlor. The grey-flanneled

>

>

>>hypocrites were (relatively) correct, and the rebelling " flower

>>

>>

>children, " with their romanticized notion of nature, were quite wrong.

>

>I am not so sure. Is not the " grey flannelled " approach to life just

>as wrong? I see the point you are making, but there must be a medium.

>

I agree, but I think that the " grey flanneled " approach *is* the medium.

In your grey flannel suit, your mind remains free - if you are the type

that has a free mind - and that's really all that matters. Everything

else is housekeeping.

>What bothers me is that the so called " caring " society we have now

>does not reflect the dreams of our youth, but is a sickening

>falsehood where evil grows greater and so called " caring people " wind

>themselves tighter in security blankets in fear of the nastiness they

>have created. This was never the point.

>

I don't know what you mean by the " caring society. " If you mean the

welfare state, then I would say that it reflects the opposite of caring

(speaking of hypocrisy).. The welfare state is not caring, it is " let

do it " writ large. I don't have to mother my children, or care

for my aging parents - I'll pay the state to do it instead. Better

still, somebody else ( " the rich " ) can pay for it. Then I am free to

" self actualize " by spending 70 hours a week at the office, or whatever.

Don't get me started. Reagan is supposed to have said that the

problem with Social Security (USA's tax supported pension scheme, as I'm

sure you know) is that it taught old people that they were supposed to

live alone. Just so.

>

> I would say

>

>

>>that Rousseau was wrong, but because he was always lying, it's hard

>>

>>

>to know what he really thought. Suffice it to say that his

>romanticism as

>

>

>>presented in the surface texts was mischievous and wrong.

>>

>>

>

>I don't know anything about this person. Only his name.

>

>

>

>>My determined reactionary position is based on personal

>>

>>

>experiences, and reading (including some of the works of CGJ). I may

>be wrong about some

>

>

>>things, but have nothing " personal " to gain from it - I'm not

>>

>>

>running for office in a rightwing district, or anything.

>

>Then would it be impertinent to ask you what you feel is to be gained

>from your seemingly reactionary position? Will it work to make the

>world, which is becomiong " nicer " in its complete nastyness and hyped

>stupidity a better place?

>

Not much better, because - let's face it - hardly anyone hears me,\; but

maybe a little better. You never know. In any event, Jung insists that

the individual matters, and that one must resist the temptation to think

that one's life *doesn't* matter - and I take Jung seriously.

>I cannot help think that it won't be very long before the name

>ministry of defence is changed to the ministry of peace.

>

Dennis Kucinich - a non-serious left-wing candidate for the American

presidency - has promised, if elected, to institute a " Department of

Peace. " In any event, is *is* true, imo, that the best way to maintain

peace is to prepare for war. That hasn't changed.

>Soon

>everything will be done in the name of " love " and it will be the most

>hate driven culture we have ever seen. This is what I call the modern

>hypocrisy.

>

That's what I call modern advertising.

>

>

>

>>Yes. I won't deny a certain shiver of schadenfreude (since I, too,

>>

>>

>have all the savage caveman instincts, just as Jung says) when I hear

>Led Zeppelin

>

>

>>tunes used to sell Cadillac SUV's :-). Serves 'em right.

>>

>>

>

>When I hear Bach used to sell insurance policies or hamburgers I just

>feel like screaming. Remember that film?

>I do my own little bit to try to reverse the horrible turning of

>events. Just as I guess your own ideas represent a reaction against

>the way the world is. But I just think you have got the wrong people

>as the target. How about calling the liars the liars? DO you not

>believe that there is a natural human morality that ought not be

>ignored?

>

Absolutely. Always. It's just that I don't think that the hippies knew

what it was - not that there was any reason why they should have. The

place to start looking for it is, I think, in the ancient political

philosophers. They got it early, and they got it right. Jung says

something to the effect that people can't be troubled to know

themselves, because it requires too much Latin and Greek. he also says

of his own books that he's sorry they're thick, but we have to read them.

>Sorry Dan, I seem to have got carried away here,

>

Not at all. This exchange hardly counts as a skirmish around these parts

:-).

Regards,

Dan

> regards to you in any case,

>

>Graham

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On the subject of the end justifying the means, The means always influence the

end regardless of what we had in mind.

Hasn't it occurred to you all that Imperialism is a dicredited, immoral motive,

and besides doesn't work.

Preventive war has never been the " American way " and we can never fix the

unintended cosequences.

Moreover, democracy can not be foisted on a non democratically inclined people

who have no experience of it. Immans will gain control in any case. Wiol they be

better than Hassam? Look at Iran.

It is time, we the great superpower stopped thinking we are the saviors of the

world and that " our way " is the only way.

Nobody made us g-d, nor responsible for each countriys interior government.

Bush has a savior complex among other things and therefore has no humility to

admit that just maybe his way is not always the right way. We seem to encourage

that among our population.

No body got a clue when other nations for reasons of their own refused to follow

in lock step.Even if I grant Bush noble motives (which I do not) he did what he

wanted and to hell with the rest of the world. So, now we will pay for it.

Saving people who are divided in whether they even want to be saved is a

thankless business, even if our motives were true blue. They are not, and it is

time we realized the " Realpolitik " is where it is " at " .

I am tired of false reasoning. I am tired of saviors who think they must save

the world and Americanize the world, and I am tired of us thinking we are the

greatest, most powerful ciountry in the world and that gives us the right to

mind everyone elses business.Truth would be a seldom thing but it would be nice

to hear some for a change. For one, Iraq means oil.Let us not forget the spoils

of was we are feverently hanging on it in fear any other country would horn in.

It is time we remembered a little humility among the nations of the world, while

we still have time before losing all our friends.

I've had my say on politics. Now it is out of my system. It is time to call a

spade a spade, and stopped trying to put a better light to what was an ill

conceived, unnecessary war.We are not commissioned to be the saviors of the

world, and we should be paying attention to our own considerable problems. We

are not pure in motive and never were. Politics isn't played that way, either

international relations.

I hear one more word that Iraq was our answer to 9/11 I will bring the

newspapers of the time to your attention. Saddam had nothing to do with the

attack, and the person who did is still out there. Enough of the big lies, lets

get our self respect back.

Sorry, but i just had enough of all this wobbling in our country and on the

list.I went back on my word not to engage in politics. Forgive me, please.Lets

get back to Jung.

Toni

Re: Re: politics and polarity

Dear Graham,

b8222002 wrote:

>

>

>Hi, Dan.

>

>

>

>>Yes. It is not only I who suggest it. Jung makes the point as well,

>>

>>

>esp. in respect to alchemy.

>

>Can you explain this? I thought alchmists wre mostly considered to be

>writers of hidden knowledge. How might they have been dangerous? Or

>have I missed the point?

>

That's true. They were dangerous because the hidden knowledge the wrote

about was contra the dogma of the church, and had the potential to

weaken or even undermine the faith of the people and the power of the

church. Jung remarks somewhere that, had he lived and worked during the

middle ages, he would have been burned as a heretic. I feel compelled to

add that the church was not merely being selfish and power hungry in

enforcing the dogma and in persecuting doubters.

>

>

>

>>I don't think that this was a lie. Too many people with disparate

>>

>>

>interests would have had to agree on the lie, with full knowledge

>that the truth

>

>

>>would come out in a few months anyway. I think that Bush and co.

>>

>>

>were fully convinced that they would find WMD's, and are perplexed

>and chagrined that

>

>

>>they have not.

>>

>>

>

>Now here you are on ground I know at least a little about. What you

>say is true to a certain extent - we didn't know that Iraq would not

>have WMD's, but what we did know was that this was not the reason for

>going to war in the first place, that WMD's was an excuse and

>unfortunately a very lame one. But would the rest of the world have

>sanctioned the true reason for the war in Iraq? I don't think so -

>and " Bush and co " , by whom I expect you mean the US President and the

>Prime Ministers of England, Spain and Australia, knew this perfectly

>well. As it was, the rest of the world didn't sanction the Iraqi war

>regardless, and in this case the end has not even justified the

>means. The dominant political groups in Iraq might thank the US and

>the rest for doing what they could not, but in the end Iraq will

>remain a thorn in the side of the west, simply because it was never

>the threat it was supposed to be - the real threat lies elsewhere -

>but we have now made ambiguous our possible relationship with a

>country and its people who might have been saved considerable

>suffering and predjudice if we had attended to the problem in a

>humanitarian way.

>

How do you deal with a classic tyrant in an " humanitarian way, " when

power is all that tyrants understand and all they will ever understand?

Even Plato famously tried and failed. Tyrants are immune to philosophy.

Can you imagine how Stalin would have dealt with Ghandi? Someone would

have rid him of that troublesome priest.

I think that Iraq has been benefitted by the war, although benefitting

the Iraqis was not its primary purpose - I agree with you there. It was

waged, among other reasons, to establish a solid base of American power

- and a more reliable ally than the Saudis- in the middle east, to

ensure future oil supplies, and to give current and potential enemies

(including said Saudis) of western democracy a little salutary something

to think about.

>Our bigotry has both saved and unsaved the day for

>the Iraqi people I suspect. The politics of power has both won and

>lost another round.

>What I was saying in this was that such lies merely begat more lies

>and trouble. And this was never the point of what the sixties

>revolution was hoping to achieve. We wanted openess and honesty.

>

You can't have that, because your enemies will always exploit it.

Moderation in everything, even in honesty and openness, imo.

>Naive I expect. But it must come eventually or things will just

>continue to get worse

>

>

>

>>Is there really anything to it beyond wild youth high on idealism?

>>

>>

>In the USA, you also had the wish to avoid the draft, of course.

>

>This is a bit cynical.

>

Oh, I don't think so. The draft ended before the war, and with it most

of the protesting. Actually, I think the last major violent anti-war

protest was Kent State. I guess it stops being fun throwing rocks and

gasoline bombs at the cops once they start shooting back.

> Idealism has its roots in injustice I think.

>

I think that's true.

>And youth are the best ones to see the injustice in a society.

>

I think that's false. They may see injustice, but they do not see the

natural limits of justice, and hence fall into injustice themselves. I

believe that part of Plato's point in having Socrates construct the

" city in speech " in _The Republic_ was to say, in effect, " You think you

want perfect justice? Fine - this is what it would look like. Be careful

what you wish for. " Perfect justice = injustice. Young idealists don't

always understand this - I didn't.

>Perhaps not the best ones to govern it. But those who govern ought to

>take note of that which youth sees. THis was the point. And it was

>twisted, as I said. Politics is a twisting machine, and it is a self

>preserving one. It has little to do with " good government. "

>

>

>

>>I agree with this paragraph in its entirety. I would only add that

>>

>>

>many thing hidden are well hidden, and that their revelation is not a

>good thing.

>

>So am I to hide my evil and you to hide yours and together we will

>make a great nation?

>

At least a decent nation - and very possibly a great nation. It has been

done before. (Of course, I must add that a great nation will never reach

the level of goodness that a great individual might - a nation or even a

city can't be Socrates, or Jung, or Jesus.)

>And teach our children to do the same? And at

>the same time expect them to be the best people they can possibly be?

>

Only the naturally best are the potnetial best, if you see what I mean.

The rest of us are just the rest of us. The many will, imo, become

better through the guidance of the city - even if the city is a decent

totalitarian theocracy, as in the case of the medieval church - than if

left to their own devices. Leaving people to their own devices is what

happened to Rome, I think.

>

>Sorry Dan, but I think you are way, way out of line here.

>

>

>

>>Again, all true, but the reaction was a bad one. To rebel against

>>

>>

>the idea that children ought to behave in certain ways and not in

>others is to rebel

>

>

>>against civilization itself.

>>

>>

>

>Is there a time when " civilization " is corrupt at its heart?

>

Yes (and I believe that we are heading there, al Oz may be a few years

behind the USA in corruption)

> Is this

>not the reason for some revolutions?

>

Yes.

> I mean, is it possible that the

>people see how bad things have become without this actually showing

>on the surface, but coming up from underneath like a tide of sickness?

>

Things aren't that bad yet. Many of us don't know what bad is yet,

although some of us here do. But i believe that many more of us will

find out if we don't correct the mistakes that the modern liberal

democracies have been making for the past several decades. Europe acts

as though it *wants* to destroy itself, and the USA and Canada are not

much better.

>

>

> Children are born as ruthless savages. It is up to adults to make

>them semi-fit for the parlor. The grey-flanneled

>

>

>>hypocrites were (relatively) correct, and the rebelling " flower

>>

>>

>children, " with their romanticized notion of nature, were quite wrong.

>

>I am not so sure. Is not the " grey flannelled " approach to life just

>as wrong? I see the point you are making, but there must be a medium.

>

I agree, but I think that the " grey flanneled " approach *is* the medium.

In your grey flannel suit, your mind remains free - if you are the type

that has a free mind - and that's really all that matters. Everything

else is housekeeping.

>What bothers me is that the so called " caring " society we have now

>does not reflect the dreams of our youth, but is a sickening

>falsehood where evil grows greater and so called " caring people " wind

>themselves tighter in security blankets in fear of the nastiness they

>have created. This was never the point.

>

I don't know what you mean by the " caring society. " If you mean the

welfare state, then I would say that it reflects the opposite of caring

(speaking of hypocrisy).. The welfare state is not caring, it is " let

do it " writ large. I don't have to mother my children, or care

for my aging parents - I'll pay the state to do it instead. Better

still, somebody else ( " the rich " ) can pay for it. Then I am free to

" self actualize " by spending 70 hours a week at the office, or whatever.

Don't get me started. Reagan is supposed to have said that the

problem with Social Security (USA's tax supported pension scheme, as I'm

sure you know) is that it taught old people that they were supposed to

live alone. Just so.

>

> I would say

>

>

>>that Rousseau was wrong, but because he was always lying, it's hard

>>

>>

>to know what he really thought. Suffice it to say that his

>romanticism as

>

>

>>presented in the surface texts was mischievous and wrong.

>>

>>

>

>I don't know anything about this person. Only his name.

>

>

>

>>My determined reactionary position is based on personal

>>

>>

>experiences, and reading (including some of the works of CGJ). I may

>be wrong about some

>

>

>>things, but have nothing " personal " to gain from it - I'm not

>>

>>

>running for office in a rightwing district, or anything.

>

>Then would it be impertinent to ask you what you feel is to be gained

>from your seemingly reactionary position? Will it work to make the

>world, which is becomiong " nicer " in its complete nastyness and hyped

>stupidity a better place?

>

Not much better, because - let's face it - hardly anyone hears me,\; but

maybe a little better. You never know. In any event, Jung insists that

the individual matters, and that one must resist the temptation to think

that one's life *doesn't* matter - and I take Jung seriously.

>I cannot help think that it won't be very long before the name

>ministry of defence is changed to the ministry of peace.

>

Dennis Kucinich - a non-serious left-wing candidate for the American

presidency - has promised, if elected, to institute a " Department of

Peace. " In any event, is *is* true, imo, that the best way to maintain

peace is to prepare for war. That hasn't changed.

>Soon

>everything will be done in the name of " love " and it will be the most

>hate driven culture we have ever seen. This is what I call the modern

>hypocrisy.

>

That's what I call modern advertising.

>

>

>

>>Yes. I won't deny a certain shiver of schadenfreude (since I, too,

>>

>>

>have all the savage caveman instincts, just as Jung says) when I hear

>Led Zeppelin

>

>

>>tunes used to sell Cadillac SUV's :-). Serves 'em right.

>>

>>

>

>When I hear Bach used to sell insurance policies or hamburgers I just

>feel like screaming. Remember that film?

>I do my own little bit to try to reverse the horrible turning of

>events. Just as I guess your own ideas represent a reaction against

>the way the world is. But I just think you have got the wrong people

>as the target. How about calling the liars the liars? DO you not

>believe that there is a natural human morality that ought not be

>ignored?

>

Absolutely. Always. It's just that I don't think that the hippies knew

what it was - not that there was any reason why they should have. The

place to start looking for it is, I think, in the ancient political

philosophers. They got it early, and they got it right. Jung says

something to the effect that people can't be troubled to know

themselves, because it requires too much Latin and Greek. he also says

of his own books that he's sorry they're thick, but we have to read them.

>Sorry Dan, I seem to have got carried away here,

>

Not at all. This exchange hardly counts as a skirmish around these parts

:-).

Regards,

Dan

> regards to you in any case,

>

>Graham

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>