Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Mutt, Would depend on their relative training, disicipline and weapons, I guess. In the absence of that info, I'd take my chances with the girls. Best, Dan > > From: Mrmailmut@... > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue PM 05:58:02 EST > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: Re: Matritism > > In a message dated 1/24/2006 5:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dwatkins9@... writes: > > It would seem that matriotism, then, is the making of one's own country easy > prey for the patriots of another's. > > Best, > > Dan > I dunno Danno,, which would " you " rather meet on a battlefield,,a platoon of > young naive brainwashed patriotic rchins with misfiring hormones,,OR,, a > platoon of righteously indignant mothers who've already endured the pain of > childbirth and ready to inflict the same on those who would disrupt the results of > their labors, with a load of lethal weapons? As Colonel (Brando) Kurtz said in > " Apocalypse Now " ,, " The horror,,the horror! " > > The Muttor > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Dear Alice, I will try, but even if I grasp it, it won't change the facts. Best, Dan > > From: IonaDove@... > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue PM 08:14:06 EST > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: Re: Matritism > > > In a message dated 1/24/2006 5:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dwatkins9@... writes: > > Dear Alice, > > It would seem that matriotism, then, is the making of one's own country easy > prey for the patriots of another's. > > > > > Alas, dear Dan, there is some truth in that. I forw the post to show an > ideal that someday may bring some balance. > > What men do not grasp is that every mother spends nine whole months to bring > a new life into this world n men cn snuff it out in a second in a war. > > Nine months is a long time. It is not time efficient to destroy it wilfuuly > - what an idiotic waste! > > Written by a woman who spent 3 years n 4 mos to produce 4 children n lose > one in the making. > > Just try to grasp this, Dan, in yr own gut. > > love > > ao > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Dear Toni, You can't make these rules - they don't work. You don't decide when and under what conditions you go to war - Napoleon does. Stalin does. Hitler does. It only takes one man to start a war - and there is always that one man. After that, it's a done thing. You fight, or you are conquered. Simple. You talk about war as though it were baseball - as though you can just make rules and people will follow them. Best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/25 Wed PM 01:35:20 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Matritism > > Dear Mutt, > > My solution is to allow only people who have lost someone they love in war, to go to war. I imagine what would happen is that after looking at each other as 'enemy " both sides would put down their weapon and weep together. > > How could anyone do anything but weep at waste of human lives? We have lost, as a people our conception of the miracle of life we have each been given. > > But we send raw teenagers to fight and brainwash them ( I know how that works, I fell for it in Officer Training, USMC) then we send them out to see how brave they can be before they die themselves for some old man's reasons. > > We should encourage war games for the old men so they can quench their thirst for violence without hurting anyone...maybe it would give them enough insight, not just political will.The sad thing at all times, however is that wisdom is in such small supply in the halls of power.The only other way is to put uniforms on them and show them reality in the front lines. > > Toni > > Re: Matritism > > > In a message dated 1/24/2006 5:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, dwatkins9@... writes: > > It would seem that matriotism, then, is the making of one's own country easy prey for the patriots of another's. > > Best, > > Dan > I dunno Danno,, which would " you " rather meet on a battlefield,,a platoon of young naive brainwashed patriotic rchins with misfiring hormones,,OR,, a platoon of righteously indignant mothers who've already endured the pain of childbirth and ready to inflict the same on those who would disrupt the results of their labors, with a load of lethal weapons? As Colonel (Brando) Kurtz said in " Apocalypse Now " ,, " The horror,,the horror! " > > The Muttor > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Dan, Of course I can't make rules. I would like to make many, including most you wouldn't approve of, but I am aware of it. Now ...if women ruled?????? My point was that, yes, often we can decide on the conditions under which we will go to war....like self protection, not looking for empire, the master race or oil, for instance. Someday we may have to discuss this while we are not fighting a preemptive war to let our old men see how " macho " they can be with other people's children's lives at stake. Someday we may be evolved enough to not have liars as leaders or fear-mongers, which is worse. Until then, I'll keep my political soapbox. Doesn't shameless lying make you sick? Toni Re: Matritism >> >> Dear Mutt, >> >> My solution is to allow only people who have lost someone they love in >> war, to go to war. I imagine what would happen is that after looking at >> each other as 'enemy " both sides would put down their weapon and weep >> together. >> >> How could anyone do anything but weep at waste of human lives? We have >> lost, as a people our conception of the miracle of life we have each been >> given. >> >> But we send raw teenagers to fight and brainwash them ( I know how that >> works, I fell for it in Officer Training, USMC) then we send them out to >> see how brave they can be before they die themselves for some old man's >> reasons. >> >> We should encourage war games for the old men so they can quench their >> thirst for violence without hurting anyone...maybe it would give them >> enough insight, not just political will.The sad thing at all times, >> however is that wisdom is in such small supply in the halls of power.The >> only other way is to put uniforms on them and show them reality in the >> front lines. >> >> Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Toni, Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " but lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't beat us on our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, you become just like us, and thus conquer yourselves. One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders sometimes being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of the many and the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. Worse, they want to think well of themselves. Flattery of the many becomes a necessary part of control by the true rulers in a democracy. Since the unfit cannot really rule, it becomes necessary for the fit to rule while appearing still to be under the control of the unfit. Bertie Wooster really believes that he is Jeeves' boss. Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, way out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display just how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her ignorance of policy and politics, her belief that reality will change on demand, that human nature will change on demand, is instructive. Her latest screed: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm " The Reformation was of course a destruction of the authority of the church, and then instantly followed that upheaval of the peasants, for when such ideas reach the collective inferior man they have the most destructive effect. The actual mob consists of cave men. The idea that every man has the same value might be a great metaphysical truth, yet in this space-and-time world it is the most tremendous illusion: nature is thoroughly aristocratic and it is the wildest mistake to assume that every man is equal. That is simply not true. Anybody in his sound senses must know that the mob is just a mob. It is inferior, consisting of inferior types of the human species. If they have immortal souls at all then it is God's business, not ours; we can leave it to him (sic) to deal with their immortal souls which are presumably far away, as far away as they are in animals; they are just as dignified as the inferior man. That we should deal with the inferior man on our own terms is all wrong. To treat the inferior man as you would treat a superior man is cruel; worse than cruel, it is nonsensical, idiotic. But that is what we do with all our democratic ideas, and as time goes on we shall see that these democratic institutions don't work since there is a fundamental psychological mistake there. Christianity has done it: we owe it to Christianity that all men are equal and dignified and such nonsense, that God looks at all men in the same way. " CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_, June 17, 1936. Can't want it plainer than that, I think? Best, Dan Dear Dan, Of course I can't make rules. I would like to make many, including most you wouldn't approve of, but I am aware of it. Now ...if women ruled?????? My point was that, yes, often we can decide on the conditions under which we will go to war....like self protection, not looking for empire, the master race or oil, for instance. Someday we may have to discuss this while we are not fighting a preemptive war to let our old men see how " macho " they can be with other people's children's lives at stake. Someday we may be evolved enough to not have liars as leaders or fear-mongers, which is worse. Until then, I'll keep my political soapbox. Doesn't shameless lying make you sick? Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Toni, PS: Ms. Brains, Beauty and Wisdom nails it again: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter012606.asp OK, so maybe there is something to this female-rule idea after all. Best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/26 Thu PM 02:59:07 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Re: Matritism > > Dear Toni, Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " but lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't beat us on our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, you become just like us, and thus conquer yourselves. One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders sometimes being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of the many and the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. Worse, they want to think well of themselves. Flattery of the many becomes a necessary part of control by the true rulers in a democracy. Since the unfit cannot really rule, it becomes necessary for the fit to rule while appearing still to be under the control of the unfit. Bertie Wooster really believes that he is Jeeves' boss. Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, way out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display just how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her ignorance of policy and politics, her belief that reality will change on demand, that human nature will change on demand, is instructive. Her latest screed: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm " The Reformation was of course a destruction of the authority of the church, and then instantly followed that upheaval of the peasants, for when such ideas reach the collective inferior man they have the most destructive effect. The actual mob consists of cave men. The idea that every man has the same value might be a great metaphysical truth, yet in this space-and-time world it is the most tremendous illusion: nature is thoroughly aristocratic and it is the wildest mistake to assume that every man is equal. That is simply not true. Anybody in his sound senses must know that the mob is just a mob. It is inferior, consisting of inferior types of the human species. If they have immortal souls at all then it is God's business, not ours; we can leave it to him (sic) to deal with their immortal souls which are presumably far away, as far away as they are in animals; they are just as dignified as the inferior man. That we should deal with the inferior man on our own terms is all wrong. To treat the inferior man as you would treat a superior man is cruel; worse than cruel, it is nonsensical, idiotic. But that is what we do with all our democratic ideas, and as time goes on we shall see that these democratic institutions don't work since there is a fundamental psychological mistake there. Christianity has done it: we owe it to Christianity that all men are equal and dignified and such nonsense, that God looks at all men in the same way. " CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_, June 17, 1936. Can't want it plainer than that, I think? Best, Dan Dear Dan, Of course I can't make rules. I would like to make many, including most you wouldn't approve of, but I am aware of it. Now ...if women ruled?????? My point was that, yes, often we can decide on the conditions under which we will go to war....like self protection, not looking for empire, the master race or oil, for instance. Someday we may have to discuss this while we are not fighting a preemptive war to let our old men see how " macho " they can be with other people's children's lives at stake. Someday we may be evolved enough to not have liars as leaders or fear-mongers, which is worse. Until then, I'll keep my political soapbox. Doesn't shameless lying make you sick? Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Dan, Neither you not Nietzsche can blame Christianity for something that was never even tried.It was misunderstood from the getgo...equality I mean...Christianity too was highjacked. Now we can only have a democracy if we allow lying? Maybe, but just maybe we could not sink to the lowest common denominator...at least an eon from now. I agree, if women become like men and use the same tactics, they have already lost. The world was not always patriarchal. Have I any hope of the light at the end? Not much, but I see no reason to adopt the tactics of liars. A lie, each lie adds to the evil in the world, and we are already responsible for enough of that. I know what is morally and ethically wrong ( a judgment based on a certain set of values, of course) but I can only refuse to be complicit. I cannot reform mankind. But must we not all take a stand somewhere on just how much bullshit (no other word fits) we accept from our leaders? ( I can take a stand like Luther and nail my 95 theses " Here I stand, I can do no other " ( has a nice ring to it) on the door ...on what? the capitol? But unfortunately it carries no weight. Not enough of us exist yet, and until enough of us say ... " so far and no further " we will continue to stink up our country from what emanates from the capitol seat of power. Excuse the over emphatic words but I am obviously angry for the moment. Toni No, Sheehan is no Joan of Arc, just an angry mother, and no, she can be no more than a symbol of motherhood bereavement. She is not Hillary,Eleanor Roosevelt, Thatcher or even the present first lady. I personally believe her rapprochement to Chavez, a real demagogue in my book is totally off base. But that is just I. Re: Re: Matritism > Dear Toni, > > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old > king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and > means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the > difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a > fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... > > > You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " but > lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't beat us on > our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, you become just > like us, and thus conquer yourselves. > > One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders sometimes > being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of the many and > the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. Worse, they want to > think well of themselves. Flattery of the many becomes a necessary part of > control by the true rulers in a democracy. Since the unfit cannot really > rule, it becomes necessary for the fit to rule while appearing still to be > under the control of the unfit. Bertie Wooster really believes that he is > Jeeves' boss. > > Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, way > out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public > pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display just > how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her ignorance of > policy and politics, her belief that reality will change on demand, that > human nature will change on demand, is instructive. Her latest screed: > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Toni, I was quoting Jung, not Nietzsche. Can Jung blame Christianity? He certainly appeared to. Best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/26 Thu PM 03:56:52 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Re: Matritism > > Dear Dan, Neither you not Nietzsche can blame Christianity for something that was never even tried.It was misunderstood from the getgo...equality I mean...Christianity too was highjacked. Now we can only have a democracy if we allow lying? Maybe, but just maybe we could not sink to the lowest common denominator...at least an eon from now. I agree, if women become like men and use the same tactics, they have already lost. The world was not always patriarchal. Have I any hope of the light at the end? Not much, but I see no reason to adopt the tactics of liars. A lie, each lie adds to the evil in the world, and we are already responsible for enough of that. I know what is morally and ethically wrong ( a judgment based on a certain set of values, of course) but I can only refuse to be complicit. I cannot reform mankind. But must we not all take a stand somewhere on just how much bullshit (no other word fits) we accept from our leaders? ( I can take a stand like Luther and nail my 95 theses " Here I stand, I can do no other " ( has a nice ring to it) on the door ...on what? the capitol? But unfortunately it carries no weight. Not enough of us exist yet, and until enough of us say ... " so far and no further " we will continue to stink up our country from what emanates from the capitol seat of power. Excuse the over emphatic words but I am obviously angry for the moment. Toni No, Sheehan is no Joan of Arc, just an angry mother, and no, she can be no more than a symbol of motherhood bereavement. She is not Hillary,Eleanor Roosevelt, Thatcher or even the present first lady. I personally believe her rapprochement to Chavez, a real demagogue in my book is totally off base. But that is just I. Re: Re: Matritism > Dear Toni, > > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old > king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and > means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the > difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a > fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... > > > You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " but > lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't beat us on > our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, you become just > like us, and thus conquer yourselves. > > One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders sometimes > being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of the many and > the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. Worse, they want to > think well of themselves. Flattery of the many becomes a necessary part of > control by the true rulers in a democracy. Since the unfit cannot really > rule, it becomes necessary for the fit to rule while appearing still to be > under the control of the unfit. Bertie Wooster really believes that he is > Jeeves' boss. > > Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, way > out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public > pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display just > how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her ignorance of > policy and politics, her belief that reality will change on demand, that > human nature will change on demand, is instructive. Her latest screed: > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dear Dan, Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter the 'thing' of the day. I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution and still not become a cynic. The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter whatsoever. Bit like some bug on the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes and all its life form too. The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up the degree of our concern. Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and all coming to nothing too. I must learn to do what I love and love what I do- beyond that I can do nothing and am nothing in any event and yet and yet........... Hope the interuption is not too anoying ..... F. > Dear Toni, > > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The > old king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways > and means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, > what's the difference? You can also be assured that we won't go > without a hell of a fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... > > > You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " > but lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't > beat us on our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, > you become just like us, and thus conquer yourselves. > > One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders > sometimes being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of > the many and the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. > Worse, they want to think well of themselves. Flattery of the many > becomes a necessary part of control by the true rulers in a democracy. > Since the unfit cannot really rule, it becomes necessary for the fit > to rule while appearing still to be under the control of the unfit. > Bertie Wooster really believes that he is Jeeves' boss. > > Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, > way out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public > pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display > just how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her > ignorance of policy and politics, her belief that reality will change > on demand, that human nature will change on demand, is instructive. > Her latest screed: > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm > > " The Reformation was of course a destruction of the authority of the > church, and then instantly followed that upheaval of the peasants, for > when such ideas reach the collective inferior man they have the most > destructive effect. The actual mob consists of cave men. The idea that > every man has the same value might be a great metaphysical truth, yet > in this space-and-time world it is the most tremendous illusion: > nature is thoroughly aristocratic and it is the wildest mistake to > assume that every man is equal. That is simply not true. Anybody in > his sound senses must know that the mob is just a mob. It is inferior, > consisting of inferior types of the human species. If they have > immortal souls at all then it is God's business, not ours; we can > leave it to him (sic) to deal with their immortal souls which are > presumably far away, as far away as they are in animals; they are just > as dignified as the inferior man. That we should deal with the > inferior man on our own terms is all wrong. To treat the inferior m > But that is what we do with all our democratic ideas, and as time goes > on we shall see that these democratic institutions don't work since > there is a fundamental psychological mistake there. Christianity has > done it: we owe it to Christianity that all men are equal and > dignified and such nonsense, that God looks at all men in the same > way. " > > CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_, June 17, 1936. > > Can't want it plainer than that, I think? > > Best, > > Dan > > > > Dear Dan, > > Of course I can't make rules. I would like to make many, including > most you wouldn't approve of, but I am aware of it. Now ...if women > ruled?????? > > My point was that, yes, often we can decide on the conditions under > which we will go to war....like self protection, not looking for > empire, the master race or oil, for instance. > > Someday we may have to discuss this while we are not fighting a > preemptive war to let our old men see how " macho " they can be with > other people's children's lives at stake. Someday we may be evolved > enough to not have liars as leaders or fear-mongers, which is worse. > > Until then, I'll keep my political soapbox. > > Doesn't shameless lying make you sick? > Toni > > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dan writes: > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old > king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and > means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the > difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a > fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... Dear Dan, Women wouldn't want to rule without men, but leaving that aside, the above statement reminds me of the problem posed by Zarathustra. Jung wrote that the solution to the problem was put forth in the Grail Legend. Carol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dear Dan, Jung can blame anyone he wants to, It just happens that what I understand of Christianity doesn't stop where he stopped. He knew well (his father) that Christianity is different to everyone who says they believe. He was alive when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and he saw how much the organization and hierarchy had changed early though on religion. And he, like the rest of us, took what appealed to him, and left the rest. I was always disappointed until I read MDR, about some of his religious comments. Once I read the end of his life, I understood him much better. I am indebted to him for much of my understanding of how human beings deal with religion and spirituality in their heads as well as their hearts. I skimmed the end of your previous post. Sorry to blame your pal, N. I should have known better. Re: Re: Matritism Dear Toni,I was quoting Jung, not Nietzsche. Can Jung blame Christianity? He certainly appeared to.Best,Dan> > > Date: 2006/01/26 Thu PM 03:56:52 EST> Dear Dan,Neither you not Nietzsche can blame Christianity for something that was never even tried.It was misunderstood from the getgo...equality I mean...Christianity too was highjacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dear , You wrote; >Dear Dan, >Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter >the 'thing' of the day. If this means that I have my own prejudices and blind spots, I'm sure you are right. >I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution >and still not become a cynic. It seems to me that to accept the theory of evolution is to become a cynic, if I understand what you mean by that term. What does the theory of evolution teach about man and his life? That life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Random, accidental, without telos, ultimately meaningless. And while the theory of evolution may not require its adherents to embrace Social Darwinism (Social Darwinism is, after all, an ethic, and modern natural science eschews the teaching of ethics), I certainly think that SD is encouraged. I have been told by one who knows that Darwin referred to Herbert Spencer as " our philosopher. " I have been readin Spencer's _Ethics_ and must admit that, once you grant him his Darwinist presmises, his argument is most persuasive. I'm not sure how to argue against it. >The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter >whatsoever. That is the teaching, all right. > Bit like some bug on >the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes .and all its life form too. >The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up >the degree of our >concern. >Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and all >coming to nothing too. >I must learn to do what I love and love what I do We are reduced to hedonism, then. That is Spencer's argument, too. What if what I love to do is to make war? To rape, slaughter and pillage? To live the life of the tyrant? Many men do. Have you left yourself anything that you can say to dissuade me? Why shouldn't I? >- beyond that I can do nothing and am >nothing in any event and yet and yet........... >Hope the interuption is not too anoying ..... Never. Best regards, Dan Watkins F. Dear Dan, Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter the 'thing' of the day. I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution and still not become a cynic. The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter whatsoever. Bit like some bug on the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes and all its life form too. The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up the degree of our concern. Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and all coming to nothing too. I must learn to do what I love and love what I do- beyond that I can do nothing and am nothing in any event and yet and yet........... Hope the interuption is not too anoying ..... F. > Dear Toni, > > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The > old king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways > and means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, > what's the difference? You can also be assured that we won't go > without a hell of a fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... > > > You *can* influence us with what used to be called " feminine wiles, " > but lately you disdain to do so. This is, imo, a mistake. You can't > beat us on our own turf and still remain women-to repeat, if you try, > you become just like us, and thus conquer yourselves. > > One cannot have a functioning democratic polity without leaders > sometimes being compelled to lie- this is because democracy is rule of > the many and the many are unwise. They want contradictory things. > Worse, they want to think well of themselves. Flattery of the many > becomes a necessary part of control by the true rulers in a democracy. > Since the unfit cannot really rule, it becomes necessary for the fit > to rule while appearing still to be under the control of the unfit. > Bertie Wooster really believes that he is Jeeves' boss. > > Sheehan - bless her heart, I know she's hurting, but she is way, > way out of her depth. She makes herself foolish with her public > pronouncements, but she does do us a service by putting on display > just how unwise the average voter can be. Her utopianism, her > ignorance of policy and politics, her belief that reality will change > on demand, that human nature will change on demand, is instructive. > Her latest screed: > > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0126-24.htm > > " The Reformation was of course a destruction of the authority of the > church, and then instantly followed that upheaval of the peasants, for > when such ideas reach the collective inferior man they have the most > destructive effect. The actual mob consists of cave men. The idea that > every man has the same value might be a great metaphysical truth, yet > in this space-and-time world it is the most tremendous illusion: > nature is thoroughly aristocratic and it is the wildest mistake to > assume that every man is equal. That is simply not true. Anybody in > his sound senses must know that the mob is just a mob. It is inferior, > consisting of inferior types of the human species. If they have > immortal souls at all then it is God's business, not ours; we can > leave it to him (sic) to deal with their immortal souls which are > presumably far away, as far away as they are in animals; they are just > as dignified as the inferior man. That we should deal with the > inferior man on our own terms is all wrong. To treat the inferior m > But that is what we do with all our democratic ideas, and as time goes > on we shall see that these democratic institutions don't work since > there is a fundamental psychological mistake there. Christianity has > done it: we owe it to Christianity that all men are equal and > dignified and such nonsense, that God looks at all men in the same > way. " > > CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_, June 17, 1936. > > Can't want it plainer than that, I think? > > Best, > > Dan > > > > Dear Dan, > > Of course I can't make rules. I would like to make many, including > most you wouldn't approve of, but I am aware of it. Now ...if women > ruled?????? > > My point was that, yes, often we can decide on the conditions under > which we will go to war....like self protection, not looking for > empire, the master race or oil, for instance. > > Someday we may have to discuss this while we are not fighting a > preemptive war to let our old men see how " macho " they can be with > other people's children's lives at stake. Someday we may be evolved > enough to not have liars as leaders or fear-mongers, which is worse. > > Until then, I'll keep my political soapbox. > > Doesn't shameless lying make you sick? > Toni > > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dear Carol, Which passage do you have in mind? Regards, Dan Watkins > > > Date: 2006/01/27 Fri AM 08:52:49 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Re: Matritism > > Dan writes: > Women can't rule without first defeating men, the original rulers. The old > king must be deposed. You can't do this without adopting the ways and > means of men - without becoming *like* men. And once you have, what's the > difference? You can also be assured that we won't go without a hell of a > fight. You can expell nature with a fork.... Dear Dan, Women wouldn't want to rule without men, but leaving that aside, the above statement reminds me of the problem posed by Zarathustra. Jung wrote that the solution to the problem was put forth in the Grail Legend. Carol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dan writes: > Which passage do you have in mind? > I'm thinking of the passage from 26 February, p.867 where Jung is talking about Zarathustra as a movement in the unconscious that would depose the old king (i.e. introduce the new god-image) but cannot and points to the Grail as a compensating truth. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dear Dan, Why are you still alive and kicking? Life told by an idiot is neither original nor true to one or two of the rest of us. I've been trying to tell you for years if you continue to depend only on your brain, this is where you would end up. Do you find your personal life has no purpose,no value? The fact that we do not have all the answers doesn't mean there are none. Maybe we might learn a little humility and discover mystery. Sometimes knowing that we cannot know is wisdom. Toni Re: Re: Matritism Dear ,You wrote; >Dear Dan,>Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter >the 'thing' of the day.If this means that I have my own prejudices and blind spots, I'm sure you are right.>I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution >and still not become a cynic.It seems to me that to accept the theory of evolution is to become a cynic, if I understand what you mean by that term. What does the theory of evolution teach about man and his life? That life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Random, accidental, without telos, ultimately meaningless. And while the theory of evolution may not require its adherents to embrace Social Darwinism (Social Darwinism is, after all, an ethic, and modern natural science eschews the teaching of ethics), I certainly think that SD is encouraged. I have been told by one who knows that Darwin referred to Herbert Spencer as "our philosopher." I have been readin Spencer's _Ethics_ and must admit that, once you grant him his Darwinist presmises, his argument is most persuasive. I'm not sure how to argue against it.>The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter >whatsoever.That is the teaching, all right. > Bit like some bug on >the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes .and all its life form too.>The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up >the degree of our >concern.>Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and all >coming to nothing too.>I must learn to do what I love and love what I doWe are reduced to hedonism, then. That is Spencer's argument, too. What if what I love to do is to make war? To rape, slaughter and pillage? To live the life of the tyrant? Many men do. Have you left yourself anything that you can say to dissuade me? Why shouldn't I?>- beyond that I can do nothing and am >nothing in any event and yet and yet...........>Hope the interuption is not too anoying .....Never.Best regards,Dan Watkins F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dear Dan, I am not thinking with my head when I share the line - Do what you love and love what you do- You interpreted the adage of 'Do what you like' or 'do what you want'- but ponder a little longer and give me some credit- to do what one loves omits evil. Stay a while as we are into definitions here- there is an assumption that to do what one loves gives universal permission to do anything- what if.. the definition of love was as (perhaps) what St came out with - vis LOVE- Now apply what I said back there................. And I suggest use a little active imagination as Jung defines- yes I have read all of his collective works- and come back to me as to what it would not mean. This is what I mean when using the rather silly phrase. > > Dear , > > You wrote; > > >Dear Dan, > >Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter >the 'thing' > >of the > day. > > > If this means that I have my own prejudices and blind spots, I'm sure > you are right. > > > >I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution >and still > >not > become a cynic. > > It seems to me that to accept the theory of evolution is to become a > cynic, if I understand what you mean by that term. What does the > theory of evolution teach about man and his life? That life is a tale > told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Random, accidental, without > telos, ultimately meaningless. And while the theory of evolution may > not require its adherents to embrace Social Darwinism (Social > Darwinism is, after all, an ethic, and modern natural science eschews > the teaching of ethics), I certainly think that SD is encouraged. I > have been told by one who knows that Darwin referred to Herbert > Spencer as " our philosopher. " I have been readin Spencer's _Ethics_ > and must admit that, once you grant him his Darwinist presmises, his > argument is most persuasive. I'm not sure how to argue against it. > > > > > >The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter >whatsoever. > > That is the teaching, all right. > > > Bit like some bug on > >the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes .and all its > >life form > too. > >The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up >the degree > >of our concern. Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and > >all >coming to nothing > too. > >I must learn to do what I love and love what I do > > We are reduced to hedonism, then. That is Spencer's argument, too. > What if what I love to do is to make war? To rape, slaughter and > pillage? To live the life of the tyrant? Many men do. Have you left > yourself anything that you can say to dissuade me? Why shouldn't I? > > > >- beyond that I can do nothing and am > >nothing in any event and yet and yet........... > >Hope the interuption is not too anoying ..... > > Never. > > Best regards, > > Dan Watkins > F. > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dan, > That life is a tale told by an > idiot, signifying nothing. Life produces Jung and Shakespeare (and Thelonious Monk,) and you believe evolution requires it to signify nothing!?! Life is meaningful, significant. It will be so no matter how generativity is understood once it is fully understood. In other words, *significance exists*. *** maximally yours, regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Hi All, There seems to be a virus on one of (our) emails here. Every time I come off I have to clean up to remove a 'tracking Cookie' with Ad-Aware SE- as my other filters do not pick it up!!! The above virus appears when I go on the net (which is not too oftern or too long) and/but it also happens when I just go to my emails alone, so I have concluded we got a bug there guys, we got a bug between us. F. > Dan, > > > That life is a tale told by an > > idiot, signifying nothing. > > Life produces Jung and Shakespeare (and Thelonious Monk,) and you > believe evolution requires it to signify nothing!?! > > Life is meaningful, significant. It will be so no matter how > generativity is understood once it is fully understood. > > In other words, *significance exists*. > > *** > > maximally yours, > > regards, > > > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Dear , At 05:11 PM 1/28/2006, you wrote: >Hi All, >There seems to be a virus on one of (our) emails here. Every time I come >off I have to >clean up to remove a 'tracking Cookie' with Ad-Aware SE- as my other >filters do not >pick it up!!! >The above virus appears when I go on the net (which is not too oftern or >too long) >and/but it also happens when I just go to my emails alone, so I have >concluded we got a >bug there guys, we got a bug between us. Not the list. You probably have a program on your computer which is attracting the bug. Check your program allowances in your firewall. Yahoo groups doesn't appear to send cookies of any kind. BTW, " tracking cookies " are not viruses nor are they necessarily a problem. At any rate, you can find out where the cookie is from simply by looking at it Clean out your cookie cache and your temp internet files - (do this in properties for the hard drive - not Internet options) or do it manually by deleting the entire cache folders. Go onto the net and download just your mail. Go offline and check the cookies and the temp internet files. Now you will see what has come in and you can see where it came from. Ad aware will tell you which folder it is in anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Thankyou . F. > Dear , At 05:11 PM 1/28/2006, you wrote: > >Hi All, > >There seems to be a virus on one of (our) emails here. Every time I > >come off I have to clean up to remove a 'tracking Cookie' with > >Ad-Aware SE- as my other filters do not pick it up!!! The above virus > >appears when I go on the net (which is not too oftern or too long) > >and/but it also happens when I just go to my emails alone, so I have > >concluded we got a bug there guys, we got a bug between us. > > Not the list. > > You probably have a program on your computer which is attracting the > bug. Check your program allowances in your firewall. Yahoo groups > doesn't appear to send cookies of any kind. > > BTW, " tracking cookies " are not viruses nor are they necessarily a > problem. > > At any rate, you can find out where the cookie is from simply by > looking at it > > Clean out your cookie cache and your temp internet files - (do this in > properties for the hard drive - not Internet options) or do it > manually by deleting the entire cache folders. > > Go onto the net and download just your mail. Go offline and check the > cookies and the temp internet files. Now you will see what has come in > and you can see where it came from. Ad aware will tell you which > folder it is in anyway. > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Dear Toni, > > > Date: 2006/01/27 Fri PM 04:37:31 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Re: Matritism > > Dear Dan, > > Why are you still alive and kicking? Life told by an >idiot is neither original nor true to one or two of the >rest of us. I've been trying to tell you for years if you >continue to depend only on your brain, this is where you >would end up. Do you find your personal life has no >purpose,no value? Please read my posts before you respond to them. What I said was that, if the evolution narrative is true, *then* the necessary conclusion is that life is a tale told by an idiot. I made a conditional statement. As you know from recent discussion, I am not ready to give the ghost on the evolution fight yet. It can be argued that the whole of life is intelligent. When a leukocyte attacks a cancerous cell, that, at least arguably, is intelligent behavior. > > The fact that we do not have all the answers doesn't >mean there are none. I agree entirely. Best, Dan > Maybe we might learn a little >humility and discover mystery. Sometimes knowing that we >cannot know is wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Read Message Back to: Inbox Dear , You wrote: Dear Dan, >I am not thinking with my head when I share the line - Do >what you >love and love what you do- You interpreted the adage >of 'Do what you >like' or 'do what you want'- but ponder a little longer >and give me some >credit- to do what one loves omits evil. You seem to assume that it is impossible for one to love what is evil - I doubt this. One loves evil only out of ignorance, true - but ignorance is surely rampant. >Stay a while as we are into >definitions here- there is an assumption that to do what >one loves gives >universal permission to do anything- what if.. the >definition of love was >as (perhaps) what St came out with - vis LOVE- >Now apply what I said back there................. >And I suggest use a little active imagination as Jung >defines- yes I >have read all of his collective works- and come back to >me as to what >it would not mean. >This is what I mean when using the rather silly phrase. I don't know what means by love - I am, I will say, a bit suspicious of all things Christian. You will have to tell me more if I am to respond further. I was disappointed that you had nothing further to say in re: evolution. Best, Dan > > > Dear Dan, I am not thinking with my head when I share the line - Do what you love and love what you do- You interpreted the adage of 'Do what you like' or 'do what you want'- but ponder a little longer and give me some credit- to do what one loves omits evil. Stay a while as we are into definitions here- there is an assumption that to do what one loves gives universal permission to do anything- what if.. the definition of love was as (perhaps) what St came out with - vis LOVE- Now apply what I said back there................. And I suggest use a little active imagination as Jung defines- yes I have read all of his collective works- and come back to me as to what it would not mean. This is what I mean when using the rather silly phrase. > > Dear , > > You wrote; > > >Dear Dan, > >Trouble is you too are caught in a time warp and utter >the 'thing' > >of the > day. > > > If this means that I have my own prejudices and blind spots, I'm sure > you are right. > > > >I too find it so hard to give up the notion of evolution >and still > >not > become a cynic. > > It seems to me that to accept the theory of evolution is to become a > cynic, if I understand what you mean by that term. What does the > theory of evolution teach about man and his life? That life is a tale > told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Random, accidental, without > telos, ultimately meaningless. And while the theory of evolution may > not require its adherents to embrace Social Darwinism (Social > Darwinism is, after all, an ethic, and modern natural science eschews > the teaching of ethics), I certainly think that SD is encouraged. I > have been told by one who knows that Darwin referred to Herbert > Spencer as " our philosopher. " I have been readin Spencer's _Ethics_ > and must admit that, once you grant him his Darwinist presmises, his > argument is most persuasive. I'm not sure how to argue against it. > > > > > >The universe is so vast that all we do may not matter >whatsoever. > > That is the teaching, all right. > > > Bit like some bug on > >the Earth's skin. A slight change and the skin changes .and all its > >life form > too. > >The MegalAnthropic notion mentioned by Toynbee sumes up >the degree > >of our concern. Nothing much making a lot of noise among its own- and > >all >coming to nothing > too. > >I must learn to do what I love and love what I do > > We are reduced to hedonism, then. That is Spencer's argument, too. > What if what I love to do is to make war? To rape, slaughter and > pillage? To live the life of the tyrant? Many men do. Have you left > yourself anything that you can say to dissuade me? Why shouldn't I? > > > >- beyond that I can do nothing and am > >nothing in any event and yet and yet........... > >Hope the interuption is not too anoying ..... > > Never. > > Best regards, > > Dan Watkins > F. > > > > > > " 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Dear , If the theory of evolution is correct, then " life " is derivative. It " produces " nothing, but is a production - or an accident, rather, and all its own derivations accidents as well. To say otherwise, once evolution has been established as the true account of the origin of life, is to fail to face the void (not that courage, under those conditions, is more choiceworthy than anything else, I suppose). Nope, Shakespeare and Jung are then just noise - pretty noise, perhaps, perhaps pleasurable noise, but noise all the same. Thelonius is then also noise, albeit noise that is probably closer to reflecting the truth of the origins (should one happen to care about the truth - but why should one care?). You know what Jung says about jazz and modern art - but then, Jung assumes that life is not a tale told by an idiot. If Darwin is right, Jung must be wrong. best, Dan Dan, > That life is a tale told by an > idiot, signifying nothing. Life produces Jung and Shakespeare (and Thelonious Monk,) and you believe evolution requires it to signify nothing!?! Life is meaningful, significant. It will be so no matter how generativity is understood once it is fully understood. In other words, *significance exists*. *** maximally yours, regards, Dan, > That life is a tale told by an > idiot, signifying nothing. Life produces Jung and Shakespeare (and Thelonious Monk,) and you believe evolution requires it to signify nothing!?! Life is meaningful, significant. It will be so no matter how generativity is understood once it is fully understood. In other words, *significance exists*. *** maximally yours, regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Dear , At 06:52 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote: >Please read my posts before you respond to them. What I said was that, if >the evolution narrative is true, *then* the necessary conclusion is that >life is a tale told by an idiot. I made a conditional statement. As you >know from recent discussion, I am not ready to give the ghost on the >evolution fight yet. It can be argued that the whole of life is >intelligent. When a leukocyte attacks a cancerous cell, that, at least >arguably, is intelligent behavior. In no way does the acceptance of the theory of evolution negate the possibility of an objective consciousness. What it does do, and this is what frightens most people, is that it negates most of our infantile ideas of " God out there " and some sort of moral law which flows from on high. The problems with such discussion is that rather than it being held within any logical or scientific consensus, it is clouded with endless projections of need and belief. Anyway, the whole thing is the subject of a new article by yours truly. Details when available. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Dear , You wrote: >In no way does the acceptance of the theory of evolution >negate the >possibility of an objective consciousness. I agree that this is true about *a* theory of evolution - as I have said before, it is pretty clear that complex species are somehow derived from simpler - but it is not clear that it is true of Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory require no intelligence, no objective consciousness - just random accidents. I had been in the habit of thinking of Darwin as a straight-forward, ingenuous scientist. This was naive of me. It has been pointed out to me recently that there is every reason to believe that Darwin was in fact a political philosopher of sorts, with a political teaching and a political agenda. That teaching was eugenics, and that agenda was improvement of the race through selection and selective breeding >What it does do, and this is what frightens most people, >is that it negates >most of our infantile ideas of " God out there " and some >sort of moral law >which flows from on high. Those ideas are archetypal and necessary, and hence will not disappear. In America, they are reflected in the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism. Europe has chosen a different path, preferring to import its fundamentalsim in the form of radical Islamists. >The problems with such discussion is that rather than it >being held within >any logical or scientific consensus, it is clouded with >endless projections >of need and belief. Given that needs are needs, and that the beliefs are among the needs, the kind of discussion you call for cannot be held outside the scientific community - hence scientists speak up in public, are blindsided by the reaction, and retreat in puzzlement. If they would speak to the public at large, they better wise up. Anyway, the whole thing is the subject of a new article by yours truly. Details when available. Cool. Best, Dan regards, Dear , At 06:52 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote: >Please read my posts before you respond to them. What I said was that, if >the evolution narrative is true, *then* the necessary conclusion is that >life is a tale told by an idiot. I made a conditional statement. As you >know from recent discussion, I am not ready to give the ghost on the >evolution fight yet. It can be argued that the whole of life is >intelligent. When a leukocyte attacks a cancerous cell, that, at least >arguably, is intelligent behavior. In no way does the acceptance of the theory of evolution negate the possibility of an objective consciousness. What it does do, and this is what frightens most people, is that it negates most of our infantile ideas of " God out there " and some sort of moral law which flows from on high. The problems with such discussion is that rather than it being held within any logical or scientific consensus, it is clouded with endless projections of need and belief. Anyway, the whole thing is the subject of a new article by yours truly. Details when available. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.