In the middle..
- Started
- Last post
- 24 Responses
- ********
Here's something I was thinking about the other day with all this politico chatter about..one partisan says A, another partisan says B and some talking head comes along and calms everything down and says "Well the answer is somewhere in the middle.." and John Q. Public goes about his day thinking "Business as usual. Oh those crazy politicians..."
And you know what, I started to think, that although that sounds reasonable, and is generally true for subjective experience, in objectivity, not all positions are the same, nor are they in the middle. Someone is right, or at least more right, than another in given matters.
I mean, when Copernicus floated the idea that you know the earth went around the sun, despite that everyone KNEW that the sun went around the earth, people didn't end up placating themselves with, "Gee, well, maybe the answers in the middle. Maybe they just go around each other? Ok, I can live with that, let's go get some coffee..."
You know, maybe even in the political sphere someone is trying to get as close as we can get to objective reality and the other is trying rhetorical tricks to achieve selfish or nefarious ends.
That's all I'm saying...
- jamble0
I disagree
No, I agree
Bollocks to it, I'm going for a cigarette.
- ********0
A defeat completely described is indistinguishable from a victory said Sartre the stalinist.
- derek20050
I disagree
No, I agree
Bollocks to it, I'm going for a cigarette.jamble
(Jan 20 06, 07:07)hhaha!!
- ********0
I guess what I'm getting at is that I think our species biggest achilles heel is our incredible ability at self-delusion. The one thing the Enlightenment that was a huge boon was to create and put faith in systems that would serve to control and limit our ability to delude ourselves - through science - or more accurately the scientific method; through governments of laws, not men that favored transparency and power seperation over secrecy and arbitrary decision making by unaccountable functionaries.
We're really at our best, as a species and as individuals when we're not deluding ourselves and satisfying our egos with illusion...
- bitnik0
an interesting point you make ... i suggest you should some Zizek or Lacan ... I just started in "on belief" from Zizek.
He has similar thoughts about the experience of perception in connection with language and symbolic structures in general. His musings about hitchcock are also good food for thought
- ********0
And you know what, I started to think, that although that sounds reasonable, and is generally true for subjective experience, in objectivity, not all positions are the same, nor are they in the middle. Someone is right, or at least more right, than another in given matters.
I mean, when Copernicus floated the idea that you know the earth went around the sun, despite that everyone KNEW that the sun went around the earth, people didn't end up placating themselves with, "Gee, well, maybe the answers in the middle. Maybe they just go around each other? Ok, I can live with that, let's go get some coffee..."
You know, maybe even in the political sphere someone is trying to get as close as we can get to objective reality and the other is trying rhetorical tricks to achieve selfish or nefarious ends.
That's all I'm saying...
TheTick
(Jan 20 06, 07:04)ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY and I've been preaching this all the time.
*ends rant
- ********0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp…
Read some of William Raspberry's commentary. An African-American Liberal who admits the faults behind being an absolutist. Recently, he was on NPR talking about both sides not being able to admit that the other side might have a good point or two. A lost art.
- Mimio0
People who always split the middle in arguments are usually out of their depth and full of shit in my experience.
- bitnik0
the thing is that man has a natural trauma cause we're able to distinguish ourselves from what we see (or so we believe). Compared to heideggers "dassein" ... not being, but "being there" ... mut simple: if you can see the shadow of the wordl, you're not part of the world. It is because of this that we have this trauma ... having the feeling that there is more, but at the same time being restrained by the physical body.
Symbolic structures (ie language & mythology) then offer a means to put everyhting we see/experience in a comprehensible context (ie religion, beliefs, ideologies, political parties, ...).so far for a friday afternoon rant ;)
- GreedoLives0
i think it's foolishness to compare undeniable physical facts (earth around the sun) with arbitrary objective decisions that change with times (what is best for society etc). And arent all political views self-serving? You might genuinely think what you believe is best for your town/state/country/planet, but so might your opponent who believes the polar opposite.
Compromise doesnt have to be full of shit, it could just be a way to coexist with both sides (why are there only two sides in this country anyways) with both sides losing a bit and gaining a bit.
- ********0
- ********0
You had me at "In"
- ********0
http://www.moviesoundscentral.co…
let me try that again
- ********0
- pascii0
let's face it. no politics here, so from now on i shut my liberal mouth and u all can vote what the f u want.
- pascii0
and btw. i don't give another fuck about the environment. it's ll all fucked up anyway - so let's go out drink, smoke and get laid
- ********0
k street project
There are two main conceptual errors at work in the current news coverage. The first involves lumping all Abramoff connections into the same category. Abramoff's clients made many campaign donations to many members of Congress from both parties, but this isn't really the issue. Most of these donations are scandalous only to the degree that any political donations are scandalous. No, the real issue is which members received donations from Abramoff's clients at his behest or accepted direct personal benefits--including lavish trips or make-work jobs for their wives--from him. This list is almost entirely Republican.
The second, and larger, conceptual error has been a failure to place Abramoff within the context of the Republican Party's takeover of K Street. The GOP domestic agenda has evolved to the point where it is almost completely indistinguishable from the accumulated whims of its funding base. Republicans explicitly wanted to destroy the old bipartisan arrangement, whereby lobbies cultivated ties with both parties, and replace it with one in which lobbies gave their exclusive loyalty to Republicans. GOP leaders called this effort the "K Street Project," and they cajoled and threatened lobbying firms to hire and donate only to them.
new republic 01.13.o6
- pascii0
...and it is anyway stupid to argue with people from places who lost any kind of self-criticism because they're educated to patriots and not individuals.
/rantOver
- groundst0
You guys talk a lot...
- ********0
don't you dare ever talk bad about our parrots pascii.
*shakes parrot at pascii
SQUAWK!