At 03:40 PM 5/19/2009, you wrote:
Marsha:
Just like the subject and object are mutually created, so are the
individual and collective. It's an old-world struggle for old-world
men. Blah, blah, blah... Platt creates an Arlo, Arlo creates a
Platt, and both fight dirty. Blah, blah, balh... Both the
Conservatives and Liberals in Gov't have lost their virtue. Blah,
blah, blah... Instead of polarity how about seeing
interconnectedness; how about discovering something new. That's N-E-W.
[Krimel]
Do tell?
By all means, lead the way, your excellence...
:Marsha:
You almost had your hooks in me didn't you dear
You nearly had me roped and tied
Altar, bound, hypnotized
Sweet freedom whispered in my ear
You're a butterfly
And butterflies are free to fly
Fly away, high away, bye bye
______________________________________________________________________
>Marsha to Ron:
>I was wondering if you think, like I do, that Arlo, Platt and Krimel
>are enmeshed in a subject/object discussion that can only conclude in
>conflict? Blah, blah, blah... Where is their interconnectedness
>acknowledged? Where is their relatedness accepted? Does anybody see
>issues as ever-changing patterns? And talk about egos?
>
>[Krimel]
>It sounds to me like you don't know what the debate is really about then.
In
>terms of political debate it shows the contrast between the two streams of
>world politics that dominated the past century. It is about the tension
>between the individual and society. It is the struggle between order and
>chaos.
>
>Its structure is polar. Platt has staked out a position on the extreme
>right. It is Randian. In my view it is a position so extremely
>individualistic that the libertarians are wary of it. It is Reaganism.
>
>I don't think either Arlo or I really advocate communism or any form of
>absolute accumulation of power. But both us wind up voicing extreme
>positions on occasion to highlight the contrast between the poles.
>
>But just the way the argument is structured is relevant. Polar opposites
>colliding. Bouncing into nooks and crannies of current events and
historical
>minutia. The dynamic tension of between the individual and the collective
>stretched out in time, shattering into fractals of infinite detail. It is
me
>against y'all. Us against them. Or it can be: me and you, a team, a
>marriage, a family, a nation. Cooperation versus conflict.
>
>It is an essential distinction between western individualist thinking and
>eastern collective understanding. It affects everything from how we
allocate
>private and public property to how we raise our children.
>
>I am sorry if the quality of the argument is not up to your standards. But
I
>hope it illustrates to any discerning reader that Platt's position was
>justifiably and soundly rejected in the last election. When the pendulum
>swings just a bit more, Platt and his neocon ilk will be back to the fringe
>where they belong.
>
>In the mean time you could try to actually be the voice of reason or hold
>your breath, close your eyes and walk on.
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
