Videocy/Literacy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Cahoot »

A passionate topic.

Eschewing emotionalism and exaggeration, the good doctor de-conflates medical cost and medical care, and notes the role of personal responsibility in health and life.

Thomas Sowell - Words vs Realities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niBhPX0jMn8
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Bobo »

To keep it simple Weininger makes a distinction between a practicality and theory. Where causality is an object for the [time/less essence] subject in causality. The universality of man as in an earlier Marx quote.

But, for now, I`ve got one on love. Anyone not understanding, well... Mammon is going to get you at night.
Marx wrote: The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces. The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective quality. Just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to quantitative being. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm.

Subjectively, this appears partly in the fact that the extension of products and needs becomes a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites. Private property does not know how to change crude need into human need. Its idealism is fantasy, caprice and whim; and no eunuch flatters his despot more basely or uses more despicable means to stimulate his dulled capacity for pleasure in order to sneak a favour for himself than does the industrial eunuch – the producer – in order to sneak for himself a few pieces of silver, in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Bobo »

Cahoot wrote:A passionate topic.

Eschewing emotionalism and exaggeration, the good doctor de-conflates medical cost and medical care, and notes the role of personal responsibility in health and life.

Thomas Sowell - Words vs Realities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niBhPX0jMn8
"In 1945, months after Earl Warren proposed compulsory health insurance in California, Harry Truman proposed a national program. “The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility,” the President said. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1946, Truman’s proposed federal health-insurance program, which, like Warren’s, was funded by a payroll tax, stalled. In his State of the Union address in 1948, an election year, Truman urged passage of his plan, which enjoyed widespread popular support. In November, Truman won the election. Dmays afterward, the Aerican Medical Association called up the San Francisco offices of Campaigns, Inc. The A.M.A. retained Whitaker and Baxter at a fee of a hundred thousand dollars a year, and with an annual budget of more than a million dollars, to thwart Truman’s plan. The A.M.A. raised the money by assessing twenty-five dollars a year from every one of its members.

At the beginning of 1949, Whitaker and Baxter, the directors of the A.M.A.’s National Education Campaign, entered national politics, setting up headquarters in Chicago, with a staff of thirty-seven. “This must be a campaign to arouse and alert the American people in every walk of life, until it generates a great public crusade and a fundamental fight for freedom,” their Plan of Campaign began. “Any other plan of action, in view of the drift toward socialization and despotism all over the world, would invite disaster.” But when Whitaker told the Washington press corps, at a luncheon, that the F.B.I. was terrorizing the A.M.A., the Washington Post offered that maybe the A.M.A., at the hands of Whitaker and Baxter, ought to stop “whipping itself into a neurosis and attempting to terrorize the whole American public every time the Administration proposes a Welfare Department or a health program.”"
...
"They lobbied newspaper editors. Whitaker boasted that “our people have personally called at more than 500 newspaper offices,” to persuade editors to change their positions. Many of these newspapers did a vast amount of advertising business with Campaigns, Inc., and received hundreds of words of free copy, each week, from the California Feature Service. “In three years,” Whitaker reported, “the number of newspapers supporting socialized medicine has dwindled from fifty to about twenty. The number of papers opposing compulsory health insurance has jumped from about 100 to 432.”

Full story at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Marx played the stock market and lived a life of considerable means financed by the Engels family cotton business.
Perhaps he was remorseful and trying to feel better.
thinkers caught in their own soap opera.

and the punchline is
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

A quote to end all quotes.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Human All-Too-Human, A Book For Free Spirits, Part II, 33
  • For we are in a prison, and can only dream of freedom, not make ourselves free. That the recognition of this fact cannot be resisted much longer is shown by the despairing and incredible postures and grimaces of those who still press against it and continue their wrestling-bout with it. Their attitude at present is something like this: “So no one is responsible for his actions? And all is full of guilt and the consciousness of guilt? But some one must be the sinner. If it is no longer possible or permissible to accuse and sentence the individual, the one poor wave in the inevitable rough-and-tumble of the waves of development—well, then, let this stormy sea, this development itself, be the sinner. Here is free will: this totality can be accused and sentenced, can atone and expiate. So let God be the sinner and man his redeemer. Let the world's history be guilt, expiation, and self-murder. Let the evil-doer be his own judge, the judge his own hangman.” This Christianity strained to its limits—for what else is it?—is the last thrust in the fencing-match between the teaching of unconditioned morality and the teaching of unconditioned non-freedom. It would be quite horrible if it were anything more than a logical pose, a hideous grimace of the underlying thought, perhaps the death-convulsion of the heart that seeks a remedy in its despair, the heart to which delirium whispers: “Behold, thou art the lamb which taketh away the sin of God.” This error lies not only in the feeling, “I am responsible,” but just as much in the contradiction, “I am not responsible, but some one must be.” That is simply not true. Hence the philosopher must say, like Christ, “Judge not,” and the final distinction between the philosophic brains and the others would be that the former wish to be just and the latter wish to be judges.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:
Marx wrote: General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability ...
Ah yes, Marx the big time moralist, how could one miss it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:A quote to end all quotes.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Human All-Too-Human, A Book For Free Spirits, Part II, 33
  • For we are in a prison, and can only dream of freedom, not make ourselves free. That the recognition of this fact cannot be resisted much longer is shown by the despairing and incredible postures and grimaces of those who still press against it and continue their wrestling-bout with it. Their attitude at present is something like this: “So no one is responsible for his actions? And all is full of guilt and the consciousness of guilt? But some one must be the sinner. If it is no longer possible or permissible to accuse and sentence the individual, the one poor wave in the inevitable rough-and-tumble of the waves of development—well, then, let this stormy sea, this development itself, be the sinner. Here is free will: this totality can be accused and sentenced, can atone and expiate. So let God be the sinner and man his redeemer. Let the world's history be guilt, expiation, and self-murder. Let the evil-doer be his own judge, the judge his own hangman.” This Christianity strained to its limits—for what else is it?—is the last thrust in the fencing-match between the teaching of unconditioned morality and the teaching of unconditioned non-freedom. It would be quite horrible if it were anything more than a logical pose, a hideous grimace of the underlying thought, perhaps the death-convulsion of the heart that seeks a remedy in its despair, the heart to which delirium whispers: “Behold, thou art the lamb which taketh away the sin of God.” This error lies not only in the feeling, “I am responsible,” but just as much in the contradiction, “I am not responsible, but some one must be.” That is simply not true. Hence the philosopher must say, like Christ, “Judge not,” and the final distinction between the philosophic brains and the others would be that the former wish to be just and the latter wish to be judges.
I must have read this quote ten times, I see myself in every part. I am blown away by the perfection of Nietzsche's reflection of the intensity of the struggle to break free of "the redemption project" (to borrow one of Dennis' terms) which itself is a reflection of the struggle to keep "the freedom project" alive which itself is a reflection of the struggle to keep "the wish to be just project" alive.

Thank goodness there is also the counter of the "release-from-struggling projects" of bliss, joy, love and laughter to balance the struggling ones. From the little I know of Nietzsche, he was imbalanced toward the struggling variety, which probably was why he captured its reflection as brilliantly as he did.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Cahoot »

We don’t need no stinking empiricism.

We need the show

to show the ideology.

The faith.

The Philanthropic Spectacle
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_4_p ... iving.html
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pye »

Diebert writes: Ah yes, Marx the big time moralist, how could one miss it.
:) well, Diebert, how could one miss that every utterance of an "ought" is moral in nature, and every single one of us who has spoken of what we "ought" to talk about here or how we "ought" to pursue enlightenment or what we "ought" to read or not-read, how we "ought" to think, how we "ought" reduce suffering (even regarding only our own), etc. etc. is a big old moralist. One cannot excuse themselves from this when any breath from the "ought-to" fuels their words & thinking.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:how could one miss that every utterance of an "ought" is moral in nature.
Well you should hammer the nail on the head but that doesn't make it any more ethical. Feel free to nail down your points any way you seem fit. Utilitarian, contemporary cases.

And furthermore, nobody "ought" to pursue enlightenment or reduce suffering or think reasonably. Of course it can be the value you raise yourself, your own wish to be just or truthful. But it's conditioned raising nevertheless. You are reasonable, you are inquiring. Even projected into a will or a dialogue there's still no ought lying around here. That's why it's all so amoral.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pye »

Diebert writes: But it's conditioned raising nevertheless.
As is everything, which rather than negates, supports its appearance in the world.

Yes, it's values always, and I am unable to wrap my head around any sentient creatures who could escape valuing entirely, thus even to desire to escape such a thing is further evidence of it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pam Seeback »

If even a tiny sliver of the shadow of "I ought because Marx [or Jesus or the Buddha] told me I ought" exists in our consciousness, the reality/clarity of I ought is lost to us.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That Nieizsche quote is where the grok concerning vic, perp, rescuer was developed.
Humans acting out like cartoon characters.
the fraud of human interaction.
the fraud of suffering.
Rescuers and rescue remedies.

will you wear this costume for me?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:
Diebert writes: But it's conditioned raising nevertheless.
As is everything, which rather than negates, supports its appearance in the world.

Yes, it's values always, and I am unable to wrap my head around any sentient creatures who could escape valuing entirely, thus even to desire to escape such a thing is further evidence of it.
It's unclear why you would equate the moral judging over good and evil, over "ought", with the act of valuing altogether. Is there no difference in your view? To me it sounds like saying hyperventilation is technically respiration. No wonder it's hard to wrap you head around it if that's the case!
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pye »

Diebert writes: It's unclear why you would equate the moral judging over good and evil, over "ought", with the act of valuing altogether.
I find it unclear how they are, at bottom, "different." What is a moral imperative but a value very highly held? What is a moral "system" but a whole set of values implied and held? And what is a value that can assert itself without its goodness/badness for the valuer being the field upon which it's set-off?
Diebert: To me it sounds like saying hyperventilation is technically respiration.
well, I do find it 'good' to be able to breathe . . . .
movingalways writes: If even a tiny sliver of the shadow of "I ought because Marx [or Jesus or the Buddha] told me I ought" exists in our consciousness, the reality/clarity of I ought is lost to us.
Spot on, especially that the reality or 'clarity' of the ought does not disappear here, either.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:What is a moral imperative but a value very highly held? What is a moral "system" but a whole set of values implied and held? And what is a value that can assert itself without its goodness/badness for the valuer being the field upon which it's set-off?
That's simplifying the word "system" to a set, a bunch, some eventuality. The context was clear for me: a moral order, an overarching purpose, a "good", a justice "department" where we can appoint judges for. This is the difference as explained in the quote: you have the "ruling" class, the philosopher (ruling as he justifies, blesses and values, himself and all what made him possible) and the rest, the one "under the law" with jury duties (ruled by the letter, moral order, ideology or religion; stale creations of some by gone philosophizing). It's about reevaluation of all values, which means discovering what it means to value and where meaning comes from. As the crazy German said: the meaning of the earth, übermensch.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Script enhancement coach available.
gun for hire.
apply within.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Marx wrote: General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability ...
Ah yes, Marx the big time moralist, how could one miss it.
By selling perfections?


-
"Hence the philosopher must say, like Christ, “Judge not,” and the final distinction between the philosophic brains and the others would be that the former wish to be just and the latter wish to be judges." - Nietzsche

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pye »

Diebert writes: It's about reevaluation of all values, which means discovering what it means to value and where meaning comes from.
I wasn't specifically forming my response around the Neitzsche quote. Still, though, "re-evaluation" of all values posits itself as a valuable thing for the future, in Nietzsche's estimation. The over-man doesn't escape values/valuing - he recognizes himself as their sole creator/arbiter. Rather than the unconscious push of evolution/herd thinking steering him forth in his yes's and no's, he takes the reins consciously for himself, but he steers nonetheless, this way or that way, yes (good) or no (bad), as god/creator (absolute) of all that so-shall be named as either.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Yeah,
Meaningmaker
Distributing thought objects around in the house of language to get comfy.
rearranging the furniture to suit
what's on the menu?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:Still, though, "re-evaluation" of all values posits itself as a valuable thing for the future, in Nietzsche's estimation. The over-man doesn't escape values/valuing - he recognizes himself as their sole creator/arbiter. Rather than the unconscious push of evolution/herd thinking steering him forth in his yes's and no's, he takes the reins consciously for himself, but he steers nonetheless, this way or that way, yes (good) or no (bad), as god/creator (absolute) of all that so-shall be named as either.
But you might introduce a back-door to common morality with that "valuable thing for the future". Now we have a metaphysical "future" with a whole order of alien, time travelling values coming in that door with it. Didn't Nietzsche attempt to envision eternal recurrence as well? What kind of future is that? Circular?

Although one can read about Nietzsche's values and how they might (re)-occur in the future, these qualities are being described as unprejudiced and amoral or in his own words: "aspirations toward the higher are not ours." Nietzsche has reversed also this value like with Zarathustra: wisdom coming down. The 'genius' does not seek a way up, he looks for ways to go down and under. This is the reversal in action; reversal of signs; reversal of polarity.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You ol' spellbreaker Diebert.
Pye works very hard for her halo.

halo being light, possibility, projection, magnum opus

given the fact imputing mind generates environment, body, pleasures, activities.
the Pye projector is a well organised unit geared for well-being.

in case you forgot
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Leyla Shen »

The only one engaging in obscurantism, Diebert, is you, who wrote:
The way you were using the quote was more like opposing "no self" as abstraction in the sense a "creator God" is one when it comes to the starting point of (religious) analysis. It's wrong because if anything Marx here argues for exactly that "no self" but continues then in other passages instead with the material "real" existence of man and nature: the whole of producing natural existence.
Where this whole line of argumentation began.

And now:
L: So now you want to give up on the whole notion of mind-dependent things altogether and think yourself a philosopher for it?

D: If you see the philosopher as the one who doesn't see mind as object, sure, it's the requirement for philosophy to happen. Otherwise we're doing science or psychology and such.
This is why any discussion with you results in--well, nothing but going around in nothing circles; there's no spirit in the words you say!
Between Suicides
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pye, from her original post: Perhaps intelligence itself will have to take on a new form in response to its confinement to the megamachine.
Is it not the sense of being confined that causes spirit to break through the confinement? You may distrust the current appearance of form of videocy over literacy, but what I hear in your statement above is an abiding faith and trust in form itself. Perhaps you have already discussed with your students how having wisdom of the infinite nature of form naturally births faith and trust in the infinity of Self, "fear not for I am always with you", but if not, perhaps it would make for a most spirited book-less, video-less class discussion.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Videocy/Literacy

Post by Pye »

Pye wrote: Perhaps intelligence itself will have to take on a new form in response to its confinement to the megamachine.
movingalways replies: but what I hear in your statement above is an abiding faith and trust in form itself.
I’m thinking my statement above is more one of the conditional (slippery) nature of it.
movingalways: perhaps it would make for a most spirited book-less, video-less class discussion.
All I can do is assure you that much of this spirited discussion also takes place. But, such a thing also takes words, linguistic reasoning – which is pretty much what the genesis of this thread meant to take on: the relationship between linguistics and consciousness; words and enlightenment.

If somebody’s got a video (images & sound) that can produce the same results as the slow, patient struggle of raveling, unraveling, linguistic reasoning/mind, please do send it our way. My guess is it would be the words contained therein that mattered most anyway; the rest dross, however pleasing . . . .
Locked