Fine words Vam and I share the reason. On 23 Jan, 17:13, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " The noise (not from you Vam) becomes such that there is no argument, > just the "devoid"." > > Yes. The truth though is that it takes a lot to quieten our own within > and refocus on the way forward, all things considered, and keep > ourself free, allowing nothing to accumulate unnoticed and > inadequately dealt with, in order to note and deal with the next thing > or matter a moment away from now ... and so on ... moment to moment, > days, years ... death and beyond ... and more ... because we have > touched others as to have touched ourself ! > > On Jan 23, 4:23 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I just agree with that Vam, entirely, no 'buts' -as you know unusual > > for me! > > > Sue works for my best friend, helping with his university teaching. > > Like me, he finds 'management teaching' intolerable against both his > > previous practical experience and an integrity it is dangerous to > > express. The textbooks seem a collection of all that does not > > matter. Behind this, one can write critically, though this is a game > > itself, easily exposed by electronic text-engines that sound as we > > do. "the linguistic construction of post-capitalist hegemony may be > > parsed as the delegitimisation of de Man's aesthetic ideology" is > > produced from some standard terms in which to write academic sentences > > ("linguistic transparency", "praxis", "discourse", "reification" and > > the rest). Many involved in this believe they are doing real work. > > The truth is that power has constrained us. Your own rhetoric would > > fit very well in this small world of international travelers, even > > though this is not its intent. The journal which contains these > > references is the Times Higher Educational Supplement, the farce that > > elsewhere it is replete with the language of this very machine, in > > book reviews and advertisements for conferences for the high and > > mighty of academe. > > > As you've said elsewhere, it is possible to defend Israel and be > > critical of it at the same time. It is possible to construct and > > deconstruct at the same time, my choice of words very intentional here > > to show there is yet more happening as we might still be "impressing" > > with "fine words". The noise (not from you Vam) becomes such that > > there is no argument, just the "devoid". > > > On 23 Jan, 07:42, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " We are incessantly treated as children." > > > > I believe the real dialogue, with oneself and with others, begins from > > > here. This also the point from where the reign of silence begins, > > > where we are individually left on our own, where our real challenge in > > > life is, in thought, will and action. This where I find the greatest > > > absence in terms of what is worthwhile, what is a positive and > > > meaningful to our quest. The noise and the cacophony you speak of is > > > yet pressing on our back, devoid of what we are seeking. > > > > Barring exceptions, ME members generally revert back to others on this > > > forum only to add more to overshouts of criticism and complaints, > > > screeching whines and laments, gigoling comfort topics, or duding and > > > mating others ! Which all is fine, considering that it takes all > > > kinds to constitute this group, but the abysmal gap in our connection > > > with each other, in the positivity and meaningfulness we can bring to > > > others and to ourself, remains yawning. > > > > On Jan 23, 7:02 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chris just has a good line in pointing out much radicalism can be seen > > > > as 'niche marketing' or that 'everything can be an industry'. I'm old > > > > enough to have seen the radicals of '68 become bureaucrats, to have > > > > joined the Labour Party to vote for Blair and become sickened that he > > > > was just another 'Boys' Own' idiot and New Labour a gawping > > > > 'management by objectives' set. I don't mean this is the only arrow > > > > in Chris' quivver, just that he is good at this. The following is > > > > mostly from a review of Tzyetan Todorov's 'In Defence of the > > > > Enlightenment' (Atlantic Books 2009): > > > > > We will not get any help (in finding intellectual and moral bases for > > > > constructing our communal life) from politicians (obsessed as they are > > > > with PC, greed and getting or holding power) or religious leaders > > > > (varying from empty waffle to incitements of mass murder of those who > > > > will not cling to similar fatuously irrational beliefs) - not much to > > > > be cheerful about. What we have is intellectual mediocrity, avoidance > > > > of the truth and moral cowardice everywhere obvious in those who hold > > > > positions of power. Radical desacralisation, loss of meaning and > > > > universal worship of Relativism are distortions of Enlightenment > > > > principles and are products of carelessness, cant and cowardice. Mass > > > > media, controlled by a few individuals, employing apparatchiks > > > > promoting the bland soup of received wisdom leave the old enemies of > > > > arbitrary authority, fanaticism and obscurantism unchallenged. All > > > > societies are under attack from fundamentalisms. We are incessantly > > > > treated as children. > > > > > On 22 Jan, 04:28, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Neil, the reference to Chris' work sounds interesting but I > > > > > cannot find those terms via in-list search. > > > > > > I think an interesting phenomena of the human mind is the ability to > > > > > perceive hypothetical scenarios, and upon considering the matter it > > > > > may conjure worth from purpose (for example). So long as we don't > > > > > become paralyzed mentally by the question itself, I would venture the > > > > > possibility we at least represent a valuable resource. Moreso, in > > > > > personal worth is a fine investment, whereby we might come to realize > > > > > timeless achievements. That is to say, to forever move our species > > > > > toward greater frontiers both inner and outer. Not to aggrandize > > > > > poetic, I equally regard how better the experience of life can be with > > > > > simply fundamental changes in health, stability, vitality, etc. > > > > > > I think you are spot-on, "that almost all on politics..." In treating > > > > > human beings as means to an end we have industrialized the process of > > > > > dehumanisation, and in ways that only the fringe-cases still care to > > > > > challenge. > > > > > > Sometimes, 'peace' - a plea, > > > > > -Ash > > > > > > On Jan 21, 5:07 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Quite brilliant Ash. Our cats merely hunt each other most of the > > > > > > time. The male appears to be the bozo of the pair in this, yet the > > > > > > much bigger female may be lured to his ground. In the garden he is > > > > > > the superior mouser and territory defender, often dropping from > > > > > > height > > > > > > onto other cats larger than he. She is an appalling bully of > > > > > > smaller, > > > > > > female cats. Both, in their own ways, worm their wiles on our > > > > > > affections and clearly regard me as the butler. > > > > > > The notion of deriving great profit from dramaturgy often crops up > > > > > > in > > > > > > here. Typical would be a swipe from Chris on the variety of protest > > > > > > industries. He is right, of course. Yet something is so grimly > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > that almost all on politics is said in the graffiti that emblazons > > > > > > 'BECAUSE WE'RE WORTHLESS'. > > > > > > > Peace indeed. > > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > On 21 Jan, 05:32, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Archytas, > > > > > > > > I have a narrative clip for you that came to mind while reading > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > post. Some more noise for your signal, eh. > > > > > > > > In error we expect to find an overt move to signify the presence > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > manipulation all the while avoiding the horrifying truth that our > > > > > > > behavior sustains, and empowers it. The nature of masterful > > > > > > > maneuver: > > > > > > > to know the opponent, his ways, predicting and set the trap > > > > > > > before he > > > > > > > decides to walk into it. > > > > > > > > I remember watching our cat learn to hunt chipmunks. How she > > > > > > > worked > > > > > > > haphazardly at first, applying hammerlike moves with no hope > > > > > > > beside > > > > > > > sheer luck of catching him. Days went on and I noticed she began > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > predict her prey's attempts at escape, his behavioral > > > > > > > characteristics, > > > > > > > and adapt contingency experiments on the poor creature. I think > > > > > > > it was > > > > > > > this that wore him down, the little chipmunk would be overcome > > > > > > > and in > > > > > > > fear made his final flawed move. She was there waiting for it. I > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > little doubt the entire battle occured on the field of minds, the > > > > > > > chipmunk knew everything necessary to wait, evade, and dart about > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > faster than our cat and did so for some time. > > > > > > > > Bred into the public discourse, I think, is an instinct to flinch > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > the worst possible moments. We are undone by the most vulgar > > > > > > > influences rather than facing the challenge of unknowns. My > > > > > > > opinion is > > > > > > > that the mob rule is the equivalent of a chipmunk behaving like a > > > > > > > ball, not even putting up a fight. What, 'better to have [hoped] > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > lost?' > > > > > > > > I know this is an absurd allegory, but when I consider > > > > > > > behaviourism > > > > > > > and how people operate within tolerance ranges how easy it could > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > with the right means, motive and opportunity to just push the > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > buttons and let predictability fall in place. By this I invoke no > > > > > > > 'Big > > > > > > > Brother' icon, but that doesn't make me cringe from the idea that > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > stage is set on a broad range of contingencies from which some > > > > > > > derive > > > > > > > great profit in conducting dramaturgy. > > > > > > > > The idea that as a recurring theme, we are either giving or being > > > > > > > taken from is the disturbing part. > > > > > > > > ...but you had to mention 'absurd'... > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 9:12 pm, > > ... > > 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.
