Posted on 02/04/2003 10:13:26 PM PST by JohnHuang2
I think it could work just that way, Alamo-Girl. Most of those spectators wouldn't understand cornelis' (valid!) objection anyway. They just want somebody to "paint them a picture."
Funny, I had the same reaction to Burke's Reflections, which anticipates the methods of our modern totalitarians in great detail -- from 1790!!!
Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences sounds like a great book, KC! I'll get me a copy.
But, like the man said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Talk about timing ... LOL! Anyway, you have my caution about spectators and my suggestion of targeted sound bites. I leave the intellectual heavy lifting to you.
You are exercising your cordial virtues in more ways than one and so I should naturally hesitate to defend anything such as myself to note that the failure of discourse cuts right through "us" and "them."
Yes, that was pretty arrogant of me, wasn't it? Normally I try to be inclusive. In my own defense, I've been seeing quite a few "mobs" lately. It's got me a little unhinged....
People who would run run from a "Savior" cling to Truth.
When one conducts any inquiry into the motives, beliefs, and aspirations of people, especially the habitually rich and powerful, one is inescapably led to the grand sweep of history stretching back 6-10,000 years. It really isn’t such a terribly long time. It is a history of the propagation of ideas, far more efficient and with a great deal more continuity than is commonly understood. It is a humbling thing that forces one to confront some undeniable choices.I would be thus remiss not to say that this process of inquiry led me to the importance of a renewed relationship with God Jesus Christ. It’s that thing about morality. It is a logical consequence to the study of such a history. It may not be a logical requirement for ecosystem management, but it is seems to be so when considering the transaction overhead among humans, so capable of untrustworthy and self-destructive behavior. It was certainly a requirement for the faith and stamina that it took me to crank out such a beast of a book, particularly in the all too frequent moments of despair at my own inadequacies as a writer. If you got this far, thank you for your forbearance. There was a cause.
I had been self-abused for over ten years of intensive and expensive humanist training that had rendered many pleasurable gestalts invited through deep regression. They were an opening for interests outside that which I was given. I was being taught to think I had all the answers while simultaneously opening myself to those suggested. I thought I knew everything, just as I had been told to think. Unfortunately for the humanists, the integrity in conduct and the search for truth they emphasized led me to seek essential Truth.
Truth was the undoing of their philosophy.
The sensual enlightenment that came with such realizations of suggested abstraction became a crowd of competing perspectives that were destructive to clarity. Unfortunately, they weren’t my realizations and they weren’t my thoughts. I have since bid them back to their own lives and, subsequent to having begged for His forgiveness, I have thanked God for the rediscovery of my own. Life is simpler, now.
Conceptual dualism is the beginning of differentiation and analysis and so, I would suggest, it is essential, though we would (all?) agree, I presume, that overconcentration on these mental constructs can, and has in the past, obscured an (the?) underlying unity. This reflects only our limitations and weaknesses, I would suggest.
But I am an optimist. Each human being is unique and that is amazing considering our numbers. Yet we are all human. Physics explored the nature of materiality and found first energy, then immateriality, to be at its core. Physics is pressing ever closer toward the unification of all (Walker comes clearly to mind here, bb).
This has also happened to me a great deal in recent years. I found my college education to be highly deficient and it was upsetting. The "good news", I suppose, is that the internet has allowed the interchange of ideas without mediation by the academic (or any other) "elite". Very valuable. And Thank You -- I will be joining bb in buying Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences.
Well said, Phaedrus!
Having lived in Poland (1981-3) during Martial Law and the crackdown on Solidarnosc, I can identify with the author's perceptions on "real-life" Communism, especially the observation that Communist governments "banish truth from human affairs" and force people to "live within a lie." Revisionist history is a tool of oppression. It relegates the individual to a meaningless speck of matter whose very proof of existence can be removed by the State.
As a free people, it is our obligation to attack the untruths, past and present, that come not only from government, but also, from our educational institutions and societal leaders. The history of the United States is being bombarded by revisionists in the name of political correctness ignoring the context of the times. I find the ignorance of young Americans about our history the stuff that will rend the fabric of our culture and leave us without a national character and identity.
Was there another thread where this point was raised. I recall this was discussed somewhere else--the Hayek thread? Do you know? Where else does Scruton raise the problem of communication? Does he get it from Voegelin?
All I could find on that was: Henceforth I understood conservatism not as a political credo only, but as a lasting vision of human society, one whose truth would always be hard to perceive, harder still to communicate, and hardest of all to act upon. And especially hard is it now, when religious sentiments follow the whims of fashion, when the global economy throws our local loyalties into disarray, and when materialism and luxury deflect the spirit from the proper business of living.
Our discussion about passion was hurled onto the metaphors of nephesh and neshamah. Nephesh, according to A-G, is the thought-mechanism of the animal soul and the source for Marxist thought, and neshamah, the as the source from which conservatism derives power from Truth revealed to the spirit. The one source leads to relativity, the other submits to higher purposes and yielding moral absolutes.
This last metaphor, I suppose, could be in some way analogous to Scruton's tradition.
I cautioned against the usefulness of this ordering and I will tell you why. The placement of these two sources, in a sort of opposition between an "us" and "them", does not answer whether these two sources belong to the same orders, as if they belong to the same genus. Sure, they are here conveniently found together, even beginning with the letter n.
The metaphor of these two sources was furthermore complicated with the body soul dichotomy, the supremacy of common (or public) reason, as distinct from the private I presume. All of this then is found to come together in a master receptacle called the consciousness, some central nexus that lies passive to a monolithic and ubiquitous nature, or reality, which is something I don't believe.
I do believe right understanding here makes all the difference in our attempts to communicate. The unique understanding of Plato led him to record the Gorgias and suggest ways of realizing dialogue after failure. It provides a unique answer that has not yet been discussed.
Of course this is only FR, but I suspect all of you consider yourselves as a cadre of significant members, always devoted to aletheia with every sincere motive.
Through all this confusion, I extent my mortal hope that the best and brightest could slug it out and leave "them" alone to their happily chosen perdition. : )
The Chapter in my Conservative Debate Handbook, just published two days ago, The Persuasive Use Of Images, illustrates the method by which the Left has been undermining American values--and promoting racial antagonism, at the same time--by substituting fantasy images for the actual historic experiences of the American people. It is more and more obvious, that the way to counter the left, is to return to an understanding of the actual dynamics of genuine positive human progress--as opposed to change and destruction in pursuit of fantasy.
The writer in the essay, you have posted, found in Burke an understanding of the rational and actual continuum which is a healthy society. We need to apply the lesson of his lifetime to our approach to the youth. We need to cut to the chase, and demonstrate the obvious. There is too much wasted effort, trying to argue with the Left in terms of their own fantasies. That accomplishes nothing. The obvious reality is that people progress via a many generational quest; that developing a clear perception of the building process that one's ancestors embarked on, and why, is the foundation for anything worthwhile to follow.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The placement of these two sources, in a sort of opposition between an "us" and "them", does not answer whether these two sources belong to the same orders, as if they belong to the same genus.
I really did not mean to cause such a ruckus, I was just offering a suggestion on how to communicate or promote conservatism to the general public.
Every human has his own nephesh and neshamah tugging at him in opposite directions. His free will determines which way he will turn - one moment he can be liberal, the next conservative. But, IMHO, he will trend in one direction or the other depending on whether he seeks gratification or completeness. In other words, it's not "us" and "them." The battle is within each of us.
This is moot to the debate of political philosophy. But perhaps you will find the distinction useful when attempting to promote conservatism to the inattentive and disinterested public.
On the point of communication, which interested all of us, I really think that confusion about the orders of monism, dualism, as well as kinds and genus is the one of the greatest cause for disrupted dialogue (the other is egoism, willfulness, or other such hubris--an ordering all the same).
Yes, confusion reigns but as noted earlier, most are not interested and so we must "count them out". To characterize this (and find an excuse for borrowing from one of my all-time favorite movies, Bull Durham), it's like a Martian talking to a Fungo.
Our discussion about passion was hurled onto the metaphors of nephesh and neshamah. Nephesh, according to A-G, is the thought-mechanism of the animal soul and the source for Marxist thought, and neshamah, the as the source from which conservatism derives power from Truth revealed to the spirit. The one source leads to relativity, the other submits to higher purposes and yielding moral absolutes.
This last metaphor, I suppose, could be in some way analogous to Scruton's tradition.
I cautioned against the usefulness of this ordering and I will tell you why. The placement of these two sources, in a sort of opposition between an "us" and "them", does not answer whether these two sources belong to the same orders, as if they belong to the same genus. Sure, they are here conveniently found together, even beginning with the letter n.
Here I would agree and disagree. I find the contrast useful and meaningful beyond the surface level in terms of its correspondence to reality because Man does have an animal, material aspect (which to me is not a negative, but more on this at some other time, perhaps) and a spiritual one (not obvious only because of pervasive popular cultural propaganda). My criticism would be that the characterization of Man cannot and should not be forced into such small and limited and thus inappropriate boxes. What we are is much more, qualitatively. The dichotomy is too pat and the words are woefully insufficient. But then, any either/or set of alternatives is too pat.
The metaphor of these two sources was furthermore complicated with the body soul dichotomy, the supremacy of common (or public) reason, as distinct from the private I presume. All of this then is found to come together in a master receptacle called the consciousness, some central nexus that lies passive to a monolithic and ubiquitous nature, or reality, which is something I don't believe.
I don't understand the underlined portion. What is it you don't believe? That consciousness is real? Or that it is central? Or what? And why?
I do believe right understanding here makes all the difference in our attempts to communicate. The unique understanding of Plato led him to record the Gorgias and suggest ways of realizing dialogue after failure. It provides a unique answer that has not yet been discussed.
I would like to hear it discussed. The implications of this statement, though (and I do not intend to put words in your mouth), seem to be that it is possible to communicate in all instances with all people and that perfect communication would lead to right action. I believe that both assumptions, if they are being made, are absolutely and demonstrably false.
Of course this is only FR, but I suspect all of you consider yourselves as a cadre of significant members, always devoted to aletheia with every sincere motive.
This raises my hackles. Should it? You are here, voluntarily, discoursing. And presumably learning. I sincerely doubt you will learn more or better in "the university". You find yourself here among some exceedingly sensitive, deep, accomplished and open-minded thinkers (betty boop comes readily to mind). In the university you will find the first 3 but not often the 4th, and that is a critical difference.
Through all this confusion, I exten[d] my mortal hope that the best and brightest could slug it out and leave "them" alone to their happily chosen perdition. : )
I suppose I would say that the brightest is not necessarily or always the best (by any stretch) and that I, for one, would not admit to much, if any, confusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.