Does everyone get what they deserve, or is injustice imposed from elsewhere? This question seems to have something to do with karma, too. I wonder if anyone has any comments?
Here is a piece of writing I am recommending http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html
It comes up as number two on a google search of "karma" and it looks to me like a good piece to read on the topic.
In my previous post, I suggest that the idea of injustice or wrongful treatment of others is pretty basic to our society, so much so that those who deny the concept are probably kind of falling off the map of society, as it were; but, there is also the implication that there are also problems in our way of looking for "who did what to who."
So, what I need here is a little help. (See previous post for content.)
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Right-ist and Leftish
Is there any such a thing as mistreatment? Has anyone ever been mistreated --- for no reason? Has anyone who was just completely innocent, just standing there, ever actually been mistreated?
A large portion of the last two hundred years of "Left" activities arises from the notion that such is possible and that such exists. The "Right" view is that, all right, bad things do happen, but you cannot call it mistreatment, and also, in some sense, it is senseless to try to fix it. It sounds a bit like saying "that's life." This seems suspect, though, and I cannot support it. This is because persons who say this are privileged (or maybe they are coming from a privileged internal self assessment, even if they live in the trailer park). That kind of thinking emanates too often from persons who are also trying to protect their own privileged white status, egos, or general freedom from scrutiny.
I think I am seeing a lot of misunderstanding of what the basic Left motive has been, in the historical sense. The basic impulse over time past is often the response of someone (and, again, let's admit that it is often a privileged individual taking on these views) who sees what he or she perceives to be a terrible wrong. In other words they see someone that they feel has been "mistreated." Rather than see "just life"? And they want to right that wrong, so, to me this seems kind of pure and good actually.
Although situations, like the one in Syria for example, are always more complicated than we give them credit for, and although we are always more ignorant than we like to admit, this kind of "Left" view comes from, dare I say, a basically good place.
In this complicated world, then, there are also other views. The "Right"-ist view in its more common and popularistic incarnations comes off looking suspect to me. No matter how clever or reasonable-sounding, there is an underlying motive there which has to do with an actual desire to stay in ignorance, since that is more comfortable to them and that means that that is their preferred state of being! And I really mean "motive," because they like being ignorant. That's fine. Maybe they are right but it won't lead to good public debates, will it? It is also the desire to hold onto one's own privilege regardless of the real nature of the world, and this obliviousness will always lead only to bad things, not only for the Right's inevitable victims, which of course they will be "innocent" of understanding that they have done anything bad too, but, ultimately, the Rightwingers themselves and everyone else.
Persons who publicize such views on the internet are just malicious and ignorant. We should say so, and get it out in the open. Right-wingers should stay in their little grass huts. The problem is that they think they already know everything. There are complicated reasons, to be sure, but at any rate, they will not make the first attempt to overcome their own knowledge deficits. How can we relate to them? How then can they themselves make any progress? How can we work with such a group?
I don't mind discussing the philosophical question "is anyone ever mistreated?" but these persons as they exist in actual society, who want to "reason" with us about their Right-wing views, are a real, ever-present danger. Why as I so activist about this today? Well, it must be because I am upset at some Um --- "bad web sites" --- while they are basically just malicious, as I have been iterating, there is also something else here, which is to note that generally speaking they do not seem to be actually doing all that much or creating that much actual harm. They just like to chatter on the internet? Maybe their lack of actual action (with a few exceptions like the Oklahoma City bombing) is because, at some level, they know the difference between right and wrong after all. But they are showing off on these web sites, in deference to fostering their self-delusion (and driving me crazy). On some deeper level they know they are wrong? I would like to think so, because today I visited some kind of Fox TV sites (actual Fox TV) and it didn't make me real happy. They have apparently create multiple sites, custom-warped to order, or they steer persons to what is "on the web." This was totally scary to see. These are members of our society. I know these persons, because I once lived with some of them. On the local level, they are nice people. But on a higher level, it is worthless, and we should get rid of these people. Send them back to the little shacks in the hills. I don't think Kentucky is full, is it? These persons are saying, "I love being ignorant, and I will do everything in my power to stay that way," and there are some complicated reasons for that.
This is not to say that Leftist persons are not sometimes wrong about stuff, but Right-ists are simply dangerous.
The "Right," at the same time, however, is always a great force in society.
Which is a conundrum. I'm stuck, so, I'll end it here.
A large portion of the last two hundred years of "Left" activities arises from the notion that such is possible and that such exists. The "Right" view is that, all right, bad things do happen, but you cannot call it mistreatment, and also, in some sense, it is senseless to try to fix it. It sounds a bit like saying "that's life." This seems suspect, though, and I cannot support it. This is because persons who say this are privileged (or maybe they are coming from a privileged internal self assessment, even if they live in the trailer park). That kind of thinking emanates too often from persons who are also trying to protect their own privileged white status, egos, or general freedom from scrutiny.
I think I am seeing a lot of misunderstanding of what the basic Left motive has been, in the historical sense. The basic impulse over time past is often the response of someone (and, again, let's admit that it is often a privileged individual taking on these views) who sees what he or she perceives to be a terrible wrong. In other words they see someone that they feel has been "mistreated." Rather than see "just life"? And they want to right that wrong, so, to me this seems kind of pure and good actually.
Although situations, like the one in Syria for example, are always more complicated than we give them credit for, and although we are always more ignorant than we like to admit, this kind of "Left" view comes from, dare I say, a basically good place.
In this complicated world, then, there are also other views. The "Right"-ist view in its more common and popularistic incarnations comes off looking suspect to me. No matter how clever or reasonable-sounding, there is an underlying motive there which has to do with an actual desire to stay in ignorance, since that is more comfortable to them and that means that that is their preferred state of being! And I really mean "motive," because they like being ignorant. That's fine. Maybe they are right but it won't lead to good public debates, will it? It is also the desire to hold onto one's own privilege regardless of the real nature of the world, and this obliviousness will always lead only to bad things, not only for the Right's inevitable victims, which of course they will be "innocent" of understanding that they have done anything bad too, but, ultimately, the Rightwingers themselves and everyone else.
Persons who publicize such views on the internet are just malicious and ignorant. We should say so, and get it out in the open. Right-wingers should stay in their little grass huts. The problem is that they think they already know everything. There are complicated reasons, to be sure, but at any rate, they will not make the first attempt to overcome their own knowledge deficits. How can we relate to them? How then can they themselves make any progress? How can we work with such a group?
I don't mind discussing the philosophical question "is anyone ever mistreated?" but these persons as they exist in actual society, who want to "reason" with us about their Right-wing views, are a real, ever-present danger. Why as I so activist about this today? Well, it must be because I am upset at some Um --- "bad web sites" --- while they are basically just malicious, as I have been iterating, there is also something else here, which is to note that generally speaking they do not seem to be actually doing all that much or creating that much actual harm. They just like to chatter on the internet? Maybe their lack of actual action (with a few exceptions like the Oklahoma City bombing) is because, at some level, they know the difference between right and wrong after all. But they are showing off on these web sites, in deference to fostering their self-delusion (and driving me crazy). On some deeper level they know they are wrong? I would like to think so, because today I visited some kind of Fox TV sites (actual Fox TV) and it didn't make me real happy. They have apparently create multiple sites, custom-warped to order, or they steer persons to what is "on the web." This was totally scary to see. These are members of our society. I know these persons, because I once lived with some of them. On the local level, they are nice people. But on a higher level, it is worthless, and we should get rid of these people. Send them back to the little shacks in the hills. I don't think Kentucky is full, is it? These persons are saying, "I love being ignorant, and I will do everything in my power to stay that way," and there are some complicated reasons for that.
This is not to say that Leftist persons are not sometimes wrong about stuff, but Right-ists are simply dangerous.
The "Right," at the same time, however, is always a great force in society.
Which is a conundrum. I'm stuck, so, I'll end it here.
More Economic Theory: The Jack Silverman System
Capitalism takes the natural world (“use value” is a term to remember here) and turns it into a “for sale” world. Wood, for example, is a natural product. Right? Without capitalism wood is valued much differently. Probably, it will not be sold to anybody. The matter simply will not come up. Persons that use the forest will probably see the wood as something that is attached to trees. And they will probably see it as a natural part of their lives, just as it is which is to say in the form of trees. And the trees look beautiful and form a part of the world. Just for the sake of argument though, let’s say that they take a little bit of this wood that is everywhere. OK. To build a house; or a sun deck, I don’t know, maybe they want take a little wood is what I'm suggesteing.
Even so they are very likely to do it within a mentality that gives priority given to its first or main purpose of the wood, which is that of forming part of their sacred, natural world, their living space, their forest home. They would choose the best ("most suitable" would be a possible word substitution here) tree to take it from, meaning the tree that will impact the environment as little as possible. They are not going to say “well, this natural world is beautiful, but it is better to sell it." They won't say that.
Even so they are very likely to do it within a mentality that gives priority given to its first or main purpose of the wood, which is that of forming part of their sacred, natural world, their living space, their forest home. They would choose the best ("most suitable" would be a possible word substitution here) tree to take it from, meaning the tree that will impact the environment as little as possible. They are not going to say “well, this natural world is beautiful, but it is better to sell it." They won't say that.
In other words, for these persons, nature is not something to sell.
Well, OK, then what is capitalism? Properly speaking, capitalism is a somewhat less natural system. It tends to mimic nature. At that stage of the game there is still enough of a natural quality there that it is sustainable. Today, however, time has run out. And what will happen is that without a massive intervention the top competitors will simply eat us out of house and home like an army of ants.
Well, OK, then what is capitalism? Properly speaking, capitalism is a somewhat less natural system. It tends to mimic nature. At that stage of the game there is still enough of a natural quality there that it is sustainable. Today, however, time has run out. And what will happen is that without a massive intervention the top competitors will simply eat us out of house and home like an army of ants.
Now, therefore, it is time for regulation.
note: "Cambria" font
Finally, Rush Too Famous For Own Good
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke_n_1318718.html
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." Bad grammar, Rush! (better would be: 'I have illustrated the absurd with the absurd', since the two elements are semantic equals, one "illustrating" the other) (the sentence continues, however, and the grammatical error is somehow rendered negligible the ensuing flow of things. I don't know how he does it but I do not dispute he is good at what he does. I should know: when I lived in the right-wing double wide for ten weeks, this was 2004, I head him on the radio every single day, right through the wall, from the right-wing ex-Marine's room next to mine. I never got tired of it. He was just plain good somehow.)
Forced to actually say something not scripted and packaged, this is how RL opened his apology, this according to Huff Post. I think that not only has he for years answered the absurd with the absurd but I suppose he also answered idiocy with idiocy. And I suppose he answers hate with more hate. This is not terrifically impressive, Mr. L.
Next: " In this instance, I chose the wrong words..."
Meaning what, if anything? That he is "sorry," I guess. He was not smart enough to have seen the issue that was looming? He wishes to have been a better word picker? But in only this case? The meaning of words is not really his concern. Ask yourself what meaning is there, which is to say, to the Limbaugh word ----- is there any actual meaning to anything he says, meaning semantically? Not really: RL's words have never meant anything, in the sense, that is to say, of logic, or rationality. It's not there. Limbaugh's "meaning" is not semantic meaning. It is rather that he is communing with them, with the audience. And, as I said above, parenthetically, I do know about it because I have really, really listened to his show(s. many). But in this case he gave himself away. He has as having become a nasty person, to say the least. And this is the problem here. There is nothing here related to what it means (ah, there is "meaning" again) to say: "I apologize."
There is something you cannot take back or apologize or change, which is the fact that you have become a nasty human being. What happened to him? For a long time, he spoke to people over the radio. (In his words, posted on the same Huff post, "...three hours a day, five days a week...") He addressed his "ditto-head" (that is his term, b.t.w.) constituency, who bonded with his voice. It is the human capacity for feeling that is involved here. They identified with him spiritually, if you will; they did not actually listen to the meaning. (Again, here "meaning" is in the sense of the meaning of the words, or of the logic, the semantic, the grammatical --- not the overall or felt meaning) ----- What happened? I asked that, didn't I? I think the man finally in the end became a bastard cut off from the rest of humanity. Real sad.
Next: "In my monologue, I posited [not to be picky or anything, but "posited" does not sound quite right here, don't you agree? ... ah, but I forget: we are not having dialogue here] that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom..."
OK. None. Whatsoever.
And that's why you wanted to see the tapes, right?
My opinion is that the dude don't make no kinda sense. But, anyway...
Limbaugh has never had to answer for himself before. He was brilliant. But one-way. The traffic was all one way. There's a lesson in that, somewhere.
I don't know what, figure it out; use the link I copied. Read it for yourself. RL said, in his own words, in this same statement as I read on the Huff, and the statement that I just quoted from, that what he is involved in "monologue." But in this case he may have been forced, against the brick wall as it were, to for the first time do dialogue. Which, it seems, is different from stand up. He has never had to have a dialogue with anybody --- ever, it would seem to me, in his career.
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." Bad grammar, Rush! (better would be: 'I have illustrated the absurd with the absurd', since the two elements are semantic equals, one "illustrating" the other) (the sentence continues, however, and the grammatical error is somehow rendered negligible the ensuing flow of things. I don't know how he does it but I do not dispute he is good at what he does. I should know: when I lived in the right-wing double wide for ten weeks, this was 2004, I head him on the radio every single day, right through the wall, from the right-wing ex-Marine's room next to mine. I never got tired of it. He was just plain good somehow.)
Forced to actually say something not scripted and packaged, this is how RL opened his apology, this according to Huff Post. I think that not only has he for years answered the absurd with the absurd but I suppose he also answered idiocy with idiocy. And I suppose he answers hate with more hate. This is not terrifically impressive, Mr. L.
Next: " In this instance, I chose the wrong words..."
Meaning what, if anything? That he is "sorry," I guess. He was not smart enough to have seen the issue that was looming? He wishes to have been a better word picker? But in only this case? The meaning of words is not really his concern. Ask yourself what meaning is there, which is to say, to the Limbaugh word ----- is there any actual meaning to anything he says, meaning semantically? Not really: RL's words have never meant anything, in the sense, that is to say, of logic, or rationality. It's not there. Limbaugh's "meaning" is not semantic meaning. It is rather that he is communing with them, with the audience. And, as I said above, parenthetically, I do know about it because I have really, really listened to his show(s. many). But in this case he gave himself away. He has as having become a nasty person, to say the least. And this is the problem here. There is nothing here related to what it means (ah, there is "meaning" again) to say: "I apologize."
There is something you cannot take back or apologize or change, which is the fact that you have become a nasty human being. What happened to him? For a long time, he spoke to people over the radio. (In his words, posted on the same Huff post, "...three hours a day, five days a week...") He addressed his "ditto-head" (that is his term, b.t.w.) constituency, who bonded with his voice. It is the human capacity for feeling that is involved here. They identified with him spiritually, if you will; they did not actually listen to the meaning. (Again, here "meaning" is in the sense of the meaning of the words, or of the logic, the semantic, the grammatical --- not the overall or felt meaning) ----- What happened? I asked that, didn't I? I think the man finally in the end became a bastard cut off from the rest of humanity. Real sad.
Next: "In my monologue, I posited [not to be picky or anything, but "posited" does not sound quite right here, don't you agree? ... ah, but I forget: we are not having dialogue here] that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom..."
OK. None. Whatsoever.
And that's why you wanted to see the tapes, right?
My opinion is that the dude don't make no kinda sense. But, anyway...
Limbaugh has never had to answer for himself before. He was brilliant. But one-way. The traffic was all one way. There's a lesson in that, somewhere.
I don't know what, figure it out; use the link I copied. Read it for yourself. RL said, in his own words, in this same statement as I read on the Huff, and the statement that I just quoted from, that what he is involved in "monologue." But in this case he may have been forced, against the brick wall as it were, to for the first time do dialogue. Which, it seems, is different from stand up. He has never had to have a dialogue with anybody --- ever, it would seem to me, in his career.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Economics Stuff
We do not understand that persons get money because they are part of society. To understand that is to begin to appreciate the present author's unique contributions to understanding economics.
What is really controversial here is to acknowledge that originally (which is to say in the case of developing phase capitalism) this had ethnic aspects. This is true, even as it is also true that this kind of ethnic limit was being stretched. Until recently, those in a capitalist system usually dealt with members of their own clan, tribe, ethnicity, etc.
By "usually," we mean in a demographic sense. This is perfectly appropriate, since actual capitalism always develops in reference to a whole society (an ethnicity, or proto-ethnicity, or only-temporary ethnicity).
Capitalism, of course, slowly "self-destructs" (as in the Schumpeter material) its own ethnic context, but the point I am making is that it does exist within ethnic parameters, for a period of time, which is what I call the "developmental" period.
Thus, to return to the theme, we get money as members of our society.
What is really controversial here is to acknowledge that originally (which is to say in the case of developing phase capitalism) this had ethnic aspects. This is true, even as it is also true that this kind of ethnic limit was being stretched. Until recently, those in a capitalist system usually dealt with members of their own clan, tribe, ethnicity, etc.
By "usually," we mean in a demographic sense. This is perfectly appropriate, since actual capitalism always develops in reference to a whole society (an ethnicity, or proto-ethnicity, or only-temporary ethnicity).
Capitalism, of course, slowly "self-destructs" (as in the Schumpeter material) its own ethnic context, but the point I am making is that it does exist within ethnic parameters, for a period of time, which is what I call the "developmental" period.
Thus, to return to the theme, we get money as members of our society.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Invisible Mutation
An extremely naive feeling that may be conceptualized as: we can do anything. At the same time this is something like self-confidence, or self-esteem. For the most part, that is healthy thing and a healthy attitude.
There is a lot of self-confidence but there is not enough self-confidence, self-esteem or skill to really investigate and see all sides of a situation.
The U. S. operation in Iraq, commanded by G. W. Bush, is believed, by many(1), to have been flawed. The earlier "concept," that of self-esteem or self-confidence, has now "mutated" (morphed) into arrogance or folly.
footnote:
(1) incl. Bush himself, in retrospect
There is a lot of self-confidence but there is not enough self-confidence, self-esteem or skill to really investigate and see all sides of a situation.
The U. S. operation in Iraq, commanded by G. W. Bush, is believed, by many(1), to have been flawed. The earlier "concept," that of self-esteem or self-confidence, has now "mutated" (morphed) into arrogance or folly.
footnote:
(1) incl. Bush himself, in retrospect
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Blues
_____
What many of us were trying to do was generate some excitement in those days, and we found some in the Butterfield Blues band, whose first album generated plenty with a black drummer and bass player helping. They did the song "Born In Chicago." That was one that my prehensile blues band tried to play. We tried that one. We did this in the early seventies, when we discovered blues, and when we tried to play together. We practiced in the basement of a church. We were rock-and-rollers.
We worshipped at the church of excitement. We also tried a few other songs; but it was difficult to get a bonafide stage act put together. I wanted to keep trying forever; but, the drummer and singer part came to my parents' house one day, and they told me they were quitting. What a thing for an eighteen year-old to hear standing on a three inch shag rug.
No more blues? No more attempts to float in space via sound + song? Where was I to go? What was to become of me? It was my attitude that if we just kept trying, literally forever, where else was there to end up? We would have to end up in successville, or successful alley, or whatever the word would be -- also, we didn't care much about words in those days. To take myself, as the example, for me - in my particular case - words did not interest. Surely some of the established artists of the day had some mature things to say. That was for them; at our level the words were necessary because the music needs to be filled up.
Words were necessary because of that need to fill out the music. I was aware of the older hippies, and their work. I was hearing it. I must have been. I liked Bob Dylan. How could I not be listening to the words? I just didn't worry about words very much in my own case, especially in application to what I had suggested we call "The Irwin Schwartz Blues Band."
Now, today, I have looked back to realize that it was a good name. At the time? Who knew? I already pointed out that we itched for excitement . There seemed to be plenty of this in those days. There was "rock," and "the blues" was as wild as rock, to tell you the truth.
Of course, once you were really playing together, real adult things would follow, such as "gigs," concerts, things like that. Why the hell did they have to quit on me?
I was really getting somewhere.
What many of us were trying to do was generate some excitement in those days, and we found some in the Butterfield Blues band, whose first album generated plenty with a black drummer and bass player helping. They did the song "Born In Chicago." That was one that my prehensile blues band tried to play. We tried that one. We did this in the early seventies, when we discovered blues, and when we tried to play together. We practiced in the basement of a church. We were rock-and-rollers.
We worshipped at the church of excitement. We also tried a few other songs; but it was difficult to get a bonafide stage act put together. I wanted to keep trying forever; but, the drummer and singer part came to my parents' house one day, and they told me they were quitting. What a thing for an eighteen year-old to hear standing on a three inch shag rug.
No more blues? No more attempts to float in space via sound + song? Where was I to go? What was to become of me? It was my attitude that if we just kept trying, literally forever, where else was there to end up? We would have to end up in successville, or successful alley, or whatever the word would be -- also, we didn't care much about words in those days. To take myself, as the example, for me - in my particular case - words did not interest. Surely some of the established artists of the day had some mature things to say. That was for them; at our level the words were necessary because the music needs to be filled up.
Words were necessary because of that need to fill out the music. I was aware of the older hippies, and their work. I was hearing it. I must have been. I liked Bob Dylan. How could I not be listening to the words? I just didn't worry about words very much in my own case, especially in application to what I had suggested we call "The Irwin Schwartz Blues Band."
Now, today, I have looked back to realize that it was a good name. At the time? Who knew? I already pointed out that we itched for excitement . There seemed to be plenty of this in those days. There was "rock," and "the blues" was as wild as rock, to tell you the truth.
Of course, once you were really playing together, real adult things would follow, such as "gigs," concerts, things like that. Why the hell did they have to quit on me?
I was really getting somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)