Hi Billy, On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Ernie : > You are assuming universal agreement about the views of Obama , not exactly > the current situation.
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that as *representative* of healthy marriage, he is the best public image we've got. I agree, politically he is useless for our purposes, but it says something (unpleasant) about the the character of most of America's public figures. As a recent author on the 2008 campaign said, the most damning statement is the Clinton's were on the fourth-most dysfunctional marriage among the major candidates. :-( > As for Bill Cosby, fellow UMass grad student ( a couple of years after I was > there, anyway ). > while his character on TV was all for the good, the problem is twofold, > ( 1 ) it is fiction, so how can anyone be sure it is realistic ? > ( 2 ) the "averageness" of the character. OK for some purposes, > but what about aspiration to excellence ? MIA, unfortunately. Aspiration to excellence? I think you're trying to hang too much on one metaphor. What *I* think we need is a *marketing* image -- something that people can immediately and concretely grasp, that anchors our philosophical abstractions in something concrete and well-known. My invocation of the Huxtables was somewhat tongue-and-cheek, but I'm actually started to grow fond of it. Also, to your points: > ( 1 ) it is fiction, so how can anyone be sure it is realistic ? The real-world Bill Cosby espouses a political philosophy of responsibility that I think most of us here would be comfortable with, which gives us _some_ (and perhaps _enough_) grounding in reality > ( 2 ) the "averageness" of the character. OK for some purposes, > but what about aspiration to excellence ? MIA, unfortunately. Huh? A doctor married to a lawyer, who raised four African-American kids and sent them to college? What's not excellent about that? Now, I'm not saying I want Cliff Huxtable to run for President as head of the Radical Centrist party. However -- as your really extenuated list shows -- he may well the best 'totem' we we could use to represent our views this side of John and Abigail. Something to think about, at any rate... -- Ernie P. > > I can think of a perfect couple who never existed, well enough, > Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa, say, but how does a > never existing couple provide insight ? > > There is one obvious example but, alas, most people don't know > much about them, the Curies. Best to rule out ( no pun intended ) > QE 2 and Prince Philip because of the power disparity in the marriage. > > In religion there is Radha and Krishna, but, needless to say, > no-one knows how historical that relationship was and, even if it > was 100 % true ( highly problematic ) would it appeal to Christians > or Jews or Buddhists ? > > The criteria I am working with include : > > Fame, the couple / family is well known > has the potential to appeal to just about everyone > is real, that is, in the modern world, or more-or-less recent history > provides an example of serious achievement to aspire to > > Actually there is one example of note, but there are obvious problems as > metaphor-- > Bill and Melinda Gates > > Personally, I think of Sri Aurobindo and Mira Richard, but they were > not a married couple, and there was no family. But as a couple > they each made significant contributions to the spiritual movement > that both were committed to. But how many people, realistically, > can identify with them ? 1 % would be a stretch. > > Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Bouvior ? Not counting their > extreme Leftist sympathies, they might be an example, > but they did have those views, and, besides, outside of > France and US universities, who has heard of them ? > > John and Abigail Adams --too unfamiliar even if they otherwise mostly > qualify. > But how do you use the Adamses as an example without tacit endorsement > of the Federalist Party ? > > This is a problem of threading a needle with ten eyes. > > Billy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/2/2010 1:32:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > Hi Billy, > > On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Ernie: >> Point well taken. Now, speaking as an adman, how do you personalize the >> idea ? >> Gotta give people a "hook," you know. Abstractions rarely ( if ever ) sell >> anything. >> OK, maybe they are persuasive in departments of physics or philosophy, >> but for the hoi polloi --which is us, more often that we like to admit-- >> what is the best way to make the concept clear ? >> >> Needed, an example of a really functional family that is well known enough >> to summon an "aha" insight when their name is / are mentioned. >> >> I think it is safe to say that Bill and Hillary don't make the cut, >> or the Sanfords or, for the matter, Abe Lincoln and Mary Todd. >> >> Famous very functional couple.? Hmmmmm. > > Ironically, the Obama's are arguably the most functional high-profile couple > in the world right now, at least in terms of marriage. :-0 > > There are better fictional figures -- in fact, Cliff Huxtable (aka Bill > Cosby) is arguably the modern ideal of fatherhood for my generation. > > "What this country needs is a Huxtabelian government, with a strong balance > of support AND responsibility". > > -- Ernie P. > > > >> >> Any ideas ? >> >> Billy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In a message dated 3/2/2010 12:53:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> HI Billy, >> >> On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Ernie: >>> If the two parties are mommy and daddy, suppose there was a >>> Radical Centrist party. What would be the appropriate metaphor ? >> >> I think our friend Mark Satin nailed it pretty well with his (re)definition >> of "nurturing parentS" vs "strict daddy" and "indulgent mommy": >> >> >> George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!: A Critique >> >> >>> Moreover, Lakoff’s frames are hardly scientifically drawn. The counterpart >>> of the strict father model is not nurturant parent. It’s what you could >>> call the “anything goes” model, from which millions of youth are suffering >>> today. >>> >>> The nurturant parent model (and how’s about plural -- nurturant parents) is >>> the golden mean, with appropriate discipline and freedom both built in. >>> Some dare call it the radical middle model. >>> >> -- Ernie P. >> >> = >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Centroids mailing list: [email protected] >> http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com >> Archives at >> http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Centroids mailing list: [email protected] >> http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com >> Archives at >> http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ > > = > > _______________________________________________ > Centroids mailing list: [email protected] > http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com > Archives at > http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Centroids mailing list: [email protected] > http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com > Archives at > http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
