It's clearly not you that's at a loss Orn - you don't lose sight of unmaking as part of a making process, or the need to remember and test memories. I no doubt lack clarity.
On 5 Mar, 16:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “ I > remember the papers hammering us with complaints about President Bush > 'misleading' us into thinking Iraq was involved when, in fact, he > came > out on at least one occasion and said there was no evidence to > support > such a supposition. We had ample access to the facts but public > perception and anger about 9/11 took us to war.” > > …on at least one occasion in no way balances nor negates the hundreds > of times the opposite was both overtly and covertly expressed…the > video tapes of this are legion. > > As to what people know/don’t know in the US…I give a lot of credit to > the news agencies. What one hears/sees about what is happening is > determined by who funds the specific news outlet these days. This > dismal change has helped to produce a bunch of dumb and dumber > ‘citizens’. > > The now ancient quote from Goebbels at the Neurenberg trials about how > easy it is to convince a people to go to war should be the title page > in history books when it comes to such things. > > On Mar 5, 5:53 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We still learn about Loyalists in public school here in the States. > > As in most things we generally support the side of the bread with the > > butter on it. Or as you bring up, the side of the bread we 'perceive' > > has the butter on it. Perception is everything. > > > Unfortunately one man's fact is another man's myth. In the build up > > to the Iraq war, polls were taken here asking citizens why we were > > going to war. A shocking majority said it was retaliation for the > > 9/11 attacks. While I think it unlikely we would have invaded without > > the attacks, I was under no illusion that Iraq was involved. I > > remember the papers hammering us with complaints about President Bush > > 'misleading' us into thinking Iraq was involved when, in fact, he came > > out on at least one occasion and said there was no evidence to support > > such a supposition. We had ample access to the facts but public > > perception and anger about 9/11 took us to war. > > > Another example is the surprising number of people, both Republicans > > and Democrats, that don't know that Bill Clinton was impeached. They > > can relate every sordid detail of the Monica Lewinski scandal but that > > fairly major fact of history totally escapes them. People constantly > > surprise me with their lack of knowledge of fairly well advertised > > facts. Is this an American problem or is this pretty much universal? > > I get the feeling most of the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots > > over here. > > > dj > > > dj > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > The general awareness of history is very often based on "facts" which, > > > subjected to closer analysis, are no more than myths or fables. The > > > grandiose history of the American Revolution, for example, forgets the > > > thousands of colonists who wanted to remain British; many of whom, > > > after 1782, moved to Canada. The same is true of Irish history, where, > > > only today, people are starting to remember the thousands of Irishmen > > > who fought (and died) for Britain in WWI, or that the 1916 > > > Revolutionaries, upon their arrest, were hissed and booed by crowds in > > > Dublin, public opinion only swinging behind them after the authorities > > > stupidly executed those they regarded as the ringleaders in one and > > > twos over a two month period. It has always been known that history is > > > generally written by the victors. > > > > Not that it is often so important. What's usually more significant is > > > not what actually happens or happened, but what people perceive to be > > > happening or have happened. Still, given the right context, pinning > > > down "facts" can be helpful - this is the basis of the Truth and > > > Reconciliation Commissions which had a fair degree of success in South > > > Africa and Northern Ireland. > > > > Francis > > > > On 5 Mrz., 11:34, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Just an incidental Orn - your scientific view (no qualms on my > > >> interpretation here) is rather postmodern - on close scrutiny most > > >> religious sagas become myths and fables - yet the myths and fables > > >> themselves are part of a real history in the present. This seems > > >> entirely sensible. It is statements of the fables as fact that > > >> remains problematic, especially in legitimation through this in such > > >> matters as shooting up cricket players or the more hidden forms in > > >> Western foreign policy. > > > >> On 2 Mar, 09:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Degeneration into an epistemology demanding linguistic acumen is very > > >> > pertinent Orn. I tend to lapse back to an anecdote involving Ron Ions > > >> > - paper illiterate and innumerate - yet by far the best performer in > > >> > leadership-getting the job done activities over 6 months of courses. > > >> > Hands like shovels, every bit a working stiff (a gourmand too, which > > >> > no stereotyping would have predicted - he couldn't even do the Belbin > > >> > Test on which the team issues were supposedly predicated). There is > > >> > much we could learn and do from this insight of yours - though there > > >> > is a paradox in needing to 'articulate' it. I read the NS stuff much > > >> > as you have btw. > > > >> > We are not likely to be Celts genetically Francis - but I take your > > >> > point well. Religion is sorry stuff, yet fellowship surely is not > > >> > (with some reservations about the gender connotation of the word). > > >> > How do we move though in a fellowship not construed about in-group > > >> > play and in 'mystery' that is not palpable nonsense requiring faith > > >> > where there should be none that is at least not tentative - a regular > > >> > point of yours? > > > >> > My feeling is that 'soft skills' are essentially degenerate and lay us > > >> > open only to manipulation. We need to know more on this and there are > > >> > some pretty horrifying scientific explanations I suspect are true - > > >> > including that we make decisions before we even start to think about > > >> > them. > > > >> > On 1 Mar, 20:11, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > On 1 Mrz., 19:00, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > I'm Scots Francis, so I have little interest in seeing other than a > > >> > > > cricket score when Wales play England at the sport I was barred > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > because I took broken time payments that were often somewhat less > > >> > > > than > > >> > > > the "amateurs" took in "expenses". > > > >> > > My profoundest apologies, Neil. I'm afraid I'm not completely free of > > >> > > the Irish tendency to regard everyone living on the largest island in > > >> > > the North-East Atlantic Archipelago simply as "Brit." Thnk you for > > >> > > reminding me that we are really, in fact, Celtic cousins and, as > > >> > > such, > > >> > > should be allies against the perfidious Sassenach. > > > >> > > Sport remains a fascinating microcosm for politics and society, not > > >> > > least because of its amazing capability for hypocrisy and because the > > >> > > people in charge generally have nothing to do with any kind of > > >> > > performance and productivity. Samaranch is proabably the greatest > > >> > > role > > >> > > model in sport today. > > > >> > > Francis > > > >> > > > Science is close to making a bit more sense than Wittgenstein in > > >> > > > terms > > >> > > > of much that works in dialogue that is not easy to trace in the > > >> > > > words. It may soon be possible to do some kind of "discourse > > >> > > > analysis > > >> > > > at speed" - or perhaps the turn will be the discovery some of us do > > >> > > > have such a faculty. Deception is key in politics and the key in > > >> > > > discourses of actual sciences is transparency. > > >> > > > I've had the odd word with my grandson of late and he has loads of > > >> > > > problems believing the biology of puberty or that I'm a biologist > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > that matter! He is working something out about lying at the > > >> > > > moment. > > >> > > > My guess is something goes wrong with this process because cheating > > >> > > > and bullying really are the names of the language-games we play - > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > maybe (I think likely) these are built-in rather like 'rank' in > > >> > > > social > > >> > > > insects? My feeling is we are on the verge of a scientific > > >> > > > unpacking > > >> > > > of this stuff that will allow our debates to change and produce new > > >> > > > 'leadership' forms - perhaps embodied in technology without us > > >> > > > being > > >> > > > run by Deep Thought. > > >> > > > I'm afraid we are going to collapse to war before this. My guess > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > that what links foreign policy and bwanking is the false notion of > > >> > > > cleverness put about. What actually happens is something we never > > >> > > > know and the heroic stories are always told in retrospect. I > > >> > > > wonder > > >> > > > if we could detach idiot prejudices (Bacon's Idols) and fast-speed > > >> > > > analysis - and find a way of making people argue under public > > >> > > > scrutiny > > >> > > > using new technologies, subjecting the votaries and worthies who > > >> > > > have > > >> > > > made 'negotiation' into a from of life to scientific scrutiny? > > >> > > > I feel a lot of sympathy with what Don says above. The politicians > > >> > > > are crap and make interventions that only work in terms of the > > >> > > > publicity they generate and the lies they uphold. New Labour in > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > UK have been so bad they have only ensured that pretty committed > > >> > > > democrats like me and Sue will never vote again. Brown and his > > >> > > > cabinet sound more like Mugabe and his henchmen every day. They > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > admit no wrong. > > > >> > > > On 1 Mar, 13:19, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > On jobs. Whatever happened to apprenticeships? We call them > > >> > > > > interns > > >> > > > > now, I suppose-but most of those are expected to complete or be > > >> > > > > in the > > >> > > > > process of > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
