On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:36 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/7/2014 12:46 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/7/2014 5:57 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 8/6/2014 4:34 PM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such >>>> generalization with partial edited posts, pretending they are held by >>>> anybody here in these strong forms, >>>> >>> >>> PGC posted, "Assume some emergence phenomenon and you risk reductionism >>> at fundamental problem of identity, and the usual fascisms of >>> discrimination can follow. Assume some universal person and you aren't a >>> step further dealing with problems of evil and difference." >>> >>> I thought saying that "the usual fascisms of discrimination can follow" >>> was blaming reductionism as a component of racial discrimination...which >>> seemed like a stretch. >>> >> >> Liz feels similar it would seem; but assuming we or I got it wrong, >> with a nod to the author of the body language post I can't recall (Kim, I >> think...too lazy to search) concerning posts/communication problems on the >> net via text in general: >> >> No, I don't blame our tendency towards reductionism across the board: >> just the idiotic usual suspects. >> >> >> Which are? >> > > Erm... you have to wait in a conversation or written text for the other > side to respond as this way, you can accuse anybody of failing to address a > question they set out to treat, before they do so. Already addressed that. > > > I thought you would address them, but having read the whole post I didn't > see any examples of reductionism that were guilty. > So maybe I misunderstand how you use "reductionism". Rather than > "explaining things in terms of the interaction of simpler elements" maybe > you mean "abstracting into a a few oversimplified categories". I was > looking for some explication. > Not concise but hasty text splurge free of charge: You can parse what I've posted pointing towards reducing politics and law to mainly emphasize security and territorially related problems; whereby I don't see any pleasant continuation of a dominance based politics, blood covered as it has been for thousands of years. This, despite impossibility of liberating ourselves from the constraining, complex violent histories, which seem to necessitate continuation of our form of governance for today to abate collapse through increasing systemic complexity. Hopefully less in the future. Technology, resources, and good intelligent people/their ideas are everywhere; yet we seem stuck politically with these colonial offshoots of managing affairs, our attention being jerked from one manufactured crisis of self-serving idiocy leading to the next; needing consolidation, legitimacy, and constant upping of threat rhetoric. We dance perpetually our last dance; with the secular democratic ideal that you espouse only partially capable of fulfilling its promise, and in constant danger of being radicalized due to its naive theological stance and its distance to truth in majority of people's lives. That's the price that has to be paid for leaving the naive mystical openness and search outside your notion of respectability. Education is most ripe I say and do from my little end, to begin a more robust relation to theology and at least rudimentary sense of logic; especially in more developed countries. This state of affairs of dominance => legitimacy of insecurity => resources for violence, will just keep multiplying suffering, offering perhaps a few non-primary side benefits when technology and dominant interests can make cash where universal human needs are met. Politics and economics should be a competition to meet those needs, rather than legitimation for dominant interests to horde resources and influence. This isn't news for you and neither is giving some lecture on basic tenets of mysticism, which is why I thought it didn't and doesn't need further explication you propose. I thought all that was clear and question what your point is besides skepticism for the mystic perspective, that you seem quite attached to for some reason. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
