To Republicans: Conservatism Has Failed. Deal With It
Mrs. Clinton, the candidate with experience-by-marriage, is doing reruns of her husband's campaign -- she's making empty promises. Most notably she's claiming she'll take the US out of Iraq 60 days after becoming president. The blood bath that would follow doesn't concern her, evidently, since Iraqis don't vote in US elections. Her other empty promise is universal health care. I guarantee the Clinton family will not have the same care as the rest of America under her "universal" program.We have three very distinquished, principled people left running: Senator Obama, who in inexperienced but impressive nonetheless; Senator McCain, who has a long distinquished career, and Governor Mike Huckabee, who is new and refreshingly human and normal.Don't know about the "labels" crowd ("left-wing," "right-wing," "progressive," "neo-con," blah, blah, blah), but I'd be pleased to see any of these men serve as president. It's a hopeful time. Possibly we'll go back to being a country of people instead of two mean gangs shouting insults back and forth. posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:52
The United States used to be conservative. We had trees. Streams. Wild animals. Clean air. Now instead of "nature" we have the environment. We could be protecting a historic parking lot or a forest. From the terminology alone, it would be impossible to tell.Changing "nature" to the "environment" is a lot like seeing Terry Schiavo as just a "brain dead" non-entity, whose life could be terminated at the will of her husband -- a man who stood to gain financially from her death and who was already the de facto husband of someone else. Schiavo's parents wanted her to be allowed to live, and it's interesting that Democrats are not interested in protecting parental rights in this case just as they consistently oppose parental rights in other areas of law."State's rights" is the simple recognition that the United States is not defined as the sum of New York added to California -- that a continent lies between. (Something that the hipster class only experiences as clouds to be flown over.)The Democrats have defined themselves in modern times as a peace party. But they cannot make peace with the half the electorate who live in this country and vote for Republicans. The claims for peace are touted alot, but antigonism and party spirit, rudeness and mean-spiritedness are still the order of the day.Senator Obama has said he'd work with Republicans to unite the country. And I believe he means it. I shall assume you are not his supporter, since you prefer the old rant of "our side, rah, rah." I think a lot of people are sick of this. More people are registering as Independents because they're sick of the split of the country into two bullying, power-mongering camps.posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:30
Why Isn't Poverty a Story?
The problem with Edward's poverty theme was its hypocrisy. Edward's is fabulously wealthy. Those people who arrive in the US from South of the Border, who you advise to continue north, are one reason why the US's poverty levels persist. But they came here for a reason. Give them a generation. The comparison with Denmark and Finland is telling. Not a lot of Mexicans in Finland, not many of anybody who isn't Finn; notably absent is a large Muslim population, as one find in the Netherlands or France or Britian all which feel the tensions associated with competing cultures. Denmark is bigger, but similary homogeneous. Are you suggesting that the US should become an all white, homogeneous glacial, sparely populated country like Finland? The immigrant poor themselves seem to think the US offers them hope. Perhaps some of them also believed Edwards when he cried crocodile tears. But Edwards was making promises to get elected. The empty, meaningless promises didn't succeed. (Not even in the Carolinas.)As long as there's opportunity in this country, people will come. And give them a generation. They had the stamina to get here. They'll have the stamina to succeed. It's not patronizing that they need. It's freedom.You're writing a feel good piece for elites. I fail to see how writing about poverty makes anybody richer. posted 02/07/2008 at 19:16:22
Judging The Campaigns By Their Colors: Shades Of Red And Blue
You are not really talking about colors in a visual way. You are talking in color words. Poor vilified Phthalo blue, for instance, is not one unitary color at all. How could it be? But as with any pigment it appears in slightly subtle forms depending upon the colors surrounding it, the character of the light source and the perceptiveness of the viewer. Color is nothing more than the photons that reach your eye, there to be interpreted by your optic nerve and your mind. Photons, my friends.I paint with Phthalo blue and with the Phthalo greens rather a lot and find them to be amazingly true and durable pigments. Depending upon the formulation they come either cool or warm from the tube (there is a Phthalo blue "red" shade that's closer to Ultramarine except for being darker). Mixed with other dark colors, Phthalo can be blended into rich darks that can contrast with either Mars or Ivory black.I think it's unfortunate that even the art blog has to bow to politics. It demonstrates how unimportant art has become to the hipster class. Lots of people blogging over there. Hardly anyone blogging over here. One has to discover what in art really speaks to people in genuine ways. I think in our time there's a kind of unacknowledeged hunger for real art, for that which is true to life, personal, that reveals life to us. It is contemplative and serious yet filled with delight. It's not a brand, any more than a rose is a brand, or a jonquil.I have loved the paintings of Pierre Bonnard for a long time. It's surprising to look at them with attention to the dates. He painted things when France was split in two by World War II. Yet the paintings are filled with a timeless, enduring life. They are not "about" the war. They are not "about" anything so transient as political change. Instead they are about food, the bath, an open window, the outdoors coming indoors. They are about a dachshund lying in a chair, the artist's faithful companion. posted 02/09/2008 at 17:23:07
Why Hillary Is The Right Choice For Women
If there were a woman's right to choose, it would be an overturning of Roe v Wade and turning that decision over to voters (there are rather MORE women voters than Supreme Courts Justices).But since one doesn't have THAT right to choose, I'll be using my woman's right to CHOOSE somebody who is not Hilliary.Cheers! posted 02/04/2008 at 18:42:42
Why This Former Right Winger Likes Obama
I voted for Bush, and given all the identical circumstances I'd vote for Bush again (against Gore, against Kerry). I don't endorse all Bush's views, but he was a far superior choice to either of his opponents.However, I could vote for Obama and indeed might. He'd be the first Democrat I voted for in I cannot remember how long. He comes across as thoroughly honest and dignified. In contrast, Hilliary is grasping and ideological, disingenuous and untrust-worthy (my opinion). I certainly will not vote for her "because" she's a woman. Having Hilliary as the first woman president might result in Hilliary as the last (if that's what the female president is supposed to be).I don't think Democrats fully understand how polarizing she is, or how polarizing their party is. I wouldn't be changing parties by voting for Obama. I am philosophically closer to the Republican party than to the Democrats. But one can vote on character, one can vote for individuals. The Dems seem to be the ones who don't get this. They are all about ideology. I'm more interested in the individual.I'd prefer an Obama with more experience. But an inexperienced Obama is greatly to be preferred to a Hilliary, the former wife, the glamour senator, the otherwise complete newbie candidate. posted 02/04/2008 at 19:00:50
Obama might be wrong to think Hilliary supporters will back him, but he is not mistaken in courting Republicans. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:53:17
It's your point of view that helps create the pendulum form of government -- that swings first one way -- and then the other. Are you anti-war? Really. You seem quite comfortable with hating people. You hate Republicans which you lump all togther. How is this an anti-war stance. The war in Iraq was not fueled by animosity, but national security. It's this Us verses Them ideology that is our national un-doing. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:52:21
Clinton's Health Plan May Require Tapping Into Wages
She's an independent who will not be voting for a Democrat if the Democrat is Hilliary. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:20:06
Well, maybe I can come over to your house to have dinner while the Dems are working out the details.Hope you're a vegetarian. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:17:40
What planet are we talking about? It's so "not free" now. Health care is eating my family's budget up. Soon I suppose we'll have to choose between "health care" and, say, eating.That's how bad it is for me. Don't know about you. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:34:07
Read and enjoy, Dems. She's your gal. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:31:26
Clinton Responds To Coulter Support With Coughing Fit
Coda: I should never have defended Coulter at this forum since anything I'd say would likely be compared to "Mein Kampt," but take note Huffers. Whenever you only talk to people who are carbon copies of yourself, you can get a very distorted view of the world.This reaction you feel toward Coulter is exactly how many people feel about Hilliary (including yours truly). The "complexity" remark that I made regarding Coulter, I could apply to Hilliary. Certainly I realize that she's a human being with a heart and soul, cares, hopes, dreams, whatever. But I do not want her (or her loathsome husband) running the country.Hilliary is radioactive. While I voted for Bush, I can still admire Obama. He has made numerous statements with which I firmly disagree, yet the man's integrity seems to me quite resonante and clear. I could actually vote for Obama, even though on Iraq as well as numerous other issues I think he's mistaken. An interesting paradox? No. Character matters. It really does.I'd rather have in office a man with whom I disagree, but who I can yet admire.The Dems have had trouble understanding the moderates and independents. So much trouble in fact that they think Hilliary is a moderate!Ooh, la la! Not even close. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:52:45
democraticjackWe don't all eat pork rinds. I'm a vegetarian, thank you. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:44:31
Wish I could quote one of the passages I found funny. Don't own a copy of the book, so I'm out of luck and perhaps you'd be surprised. Not all the humor is so strident.posted 02/04/2008 at 13:43:56
I'm sorry if I was construed as supporting her hurtful statements. However, she has written intelligent things that are less talked about -- which is partly her fault since her more strident opinions prompt the sensationist reactions.Her questions surrounding evolution are very cogent. I would enjoy seeing them addressed in some specificity by biologists (other than Dawkins who science's version of Coulter, in short, a grand-stander).posted 02/04/2008 at 13:42:55
Actually I didn't express an opinion about her. I said I found the book intelligent and funny. If she were a Dem, anything she said would be forgiven.In fairness to Coulter, who is probably abrasive based on the two times I saw her interviewed, people's personalities can be complex. She can be intelligent and have lots of "issues."It's the black/white, all-or-nothing attitude (which I find oft times here at Huff) that is unhelpful.I agree with you that Coulter has received more attention than she warrants. And, ironically, she gets it from the Left. I had hardly any awareness of her until I began posting here. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:40:20
Mein Kampt, the stale, evergreen reference to Nazis, the cliche that refuses to die, blah, blah, blah. Sorry. It deserves less reply than I've given.As to the Coulter quotes, I've not read the list. I'm sure they're biting kinds of lines. I note they are taken out of context.Coulter's wit is definitely biting. I have seen her on tv (twice, I think -- I never paid any attention to her before I began posting on Huff where she's a fave-to-hate -- I was introduced to her BY her critics, ironically). Her in-person remarks I found a bit over the top. Some of her writing is wicked. But on balance, I still say she's very funny in "Godless." (Haven't read anything else.)She comes across as very intelligent. She takes aim at evolution in an intelligent, elegant way that her critics would be wise to notice. She takes no prisoners when it comes to the public schools. (That was especially refreshing.)I think a Democrat doing similarly razor-edged comedy would not be chastised for being too tough on opponents. Your reasons for disliking her is that she's making fun of you. But, hey, why do you have to take it personally.I find Jon Stewart every bit as hysterical, especially when he's roasting the GOP.It's healthy to laugh. At yourself, most of all.Peace & love,Muse posted 02/03/2008 at 19:30:48
Woah! I had earlier asked for the show of hands (how many have actually read a Coulter book) -- now I've actuallly seen the Hilliary video.Yeah! I'm really seeing her "defending" the US better than McCain, decorated Veteran, former prisoner of war.Talk about Hubris. Really. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:29:02
How many here have actually read a book by Coulter? Come on, let's have a show of hands. I read "Godless" and found it hysterically funny. I wanted to send her a letter thanking her for some very healthy laughter!She's a smart lady. Read her book, then argue ideas. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:00:37
Hillary's Looming Electability Crisis
I'm sorry, but the Dems are the ones with problems of race. Republicans put Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the highest executive offices held by African-Americans to date. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Secretary of State is in Constitutional line of secession to the president. So, in a sense, the GOP has already rehearsed the black president thing.Anyway, Powell would have won by a landside if he had run. posted 02/03/2008 at 20:17:12
Nellie,You are biased. Of course you don't think so. And it's your bias that prevents you seeing why so many Americans loath Hilliary.Yours was the comment to which I originally appended my posting (regarding Hitchen's allegation) that didn't appear. Don't know if I was censored by the authors or by a computer snafu. I think if Hilliary gets it, we'll have another Republican administration. That's okay by me, of course. But if Obama wins the Dems, at least the GOP won't feel they have to migrate to Canada! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:30:31
After reading your age discrimination comment I'd think you'd welcome a conservative court. Then they can overturn abortion and rescue the very youngest among us from anniliation. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:25:34
Do not "evolve" much after 30? Pray how old is nellie? Twelve? posted 02/03/2008 at 16:24:26
That's heartening to know! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:17:33
duh, I got my favorite "love to hate" people mixed up -- I meant to say it's a theme Christopher Hitchens has trumpeted. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:08:32
I posted a comment that I find was not permitted to appear, given (I presume) some content about Hilliary that was felt to be too sensitive for Dem's ears (even Obama supporters).It's unfortunate. (As you recall, I'm from the Bush camp.) If Hilliary gets the nomination, I think it would next to miraculous if that information does not become more widely circulated. It's a theme of Richard Dawkins, a darling of the left, so I am quite sure somebody across the aisle will make a case out of it.Hilliary is, as someone else here said it, radioactive. More so if she's the ticket holder than if she's just one contender.That said, even as someone who leans toward the Republican side of the universe, I must say that Obama strikes me as a very dignified candidate -- someone we wouldn't be embarassed to have occupying the White House.You should encourage your Dem audience to get all the bad news out now while it can affect their choice, rather than later when it might be a really very bitter pill to have to swallow.Republicans another four years? Well, okay if you insist. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:04:34
Yes, Obama on Hilliary's ticket. Look what it did for President Gore.If Obama accepts a spot on a Hilliary ticket, I'll know I misjudged the man. THAT would disqualify him for the White House in my estimation. posted 02/02/2008 at 17:24:40
I have thought so too. I voted for Bush twice because I greatly disliked first Gore and later Kerry. But in 2000 my real choice would have been McCain. However, he didn't get the nomination. (I had hoped Bradley would get it for the Dem nomination, but of course that didn't happen either.)If McCain got the job, he'd obviously be a one termer. But maybe a great one-termer is to be preferred to a novice. posted 02/02/2008 at 17:23:12
The "Soul Hypothesis" (Part 3)
I was stung by a bee. posted 02/08/2008 at 17:46:37
I have hardly given you any "info" at all. I'm deep. posted 02/07/2008 at 17:30:46
It's good to be anti-sophist. Honesty counts! Head injuries have been known to cause religion for some. Conversions by sword were once more the Muslim specialty (I've heard) let's hope the Catholics don't try it. Presbyterians like to form committees -- probably one reason I'm less of a Presbyterian than I used to be -- whoever stays awake the longest is voted the most religious I think. Jesuits to debate with -- that sounds like something you could enjoy. And, if memory serves me, you also had an appreciation of Catholic school uniforms for girls? posted 02/07/2008 at 17:18:25
The boonies where I was baptized was really wonderful. The minister who baptized me I had met by chance. Most of his time he spent visiting elderly people who were invalids, but he detoured to baptize one young outsider. He was elderly himself and die many years ago. A xenophobic parent, however, might have some health problems (?) -- don't know how old your father is, but personality changes are sometimes signs of illness. I hope it's just the effect of different surroundings and glad to hear he's not handling snakes! They've been known to cause health problems too.Glad to hear you like the paintings. posted 02/07/2008 at 17:12:56
We agree again, my friend.Soon we'll be twins! posted 02/06/2008 at 18:18:22
Well, thanks for your supportive words. I am a plain Christian though. I do not revere Jesus as a teacher so much as accept his being God's Son, though I don't really know what that means. However, I cut my teeth on Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance" when I was a youth, and something of its Unitarian message has also stuck with me even as I became a Christian. (Emerson seems to have thought of Jesus in more the terms you describe.)However my favorite passage from the Bible is one of the "trinity" intimations:from John 1 "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." [10] "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."[14]"Word" in that passage is "logos", the same greek word from which we derive our "logic" and the "-ology" ending for all our scientific "study-of" words.No religion or culture has the corner on the market of kindness or morality. C.S. Lewis's ideas about the "other religions" [found in his book "Mere Christianity"] represent, I think, the sensible stance. (He noted that the NT is really pretty silent about other faiths.)So glad you visited the blog pages. And very glad to hear you like the koi! Very glad indeed! posted 02/06/2008 at 16:38:32
I don't know why you thought I was Catholic, but it provides an intriguing, perhaps, Dr. Freud moment. Are you sure you're not anti-Catholic? But, no, I am a protestant Christian. Formerly a card-carrying Presbyterian, though baptised in a lovely, small fundamentalist church out in the boonies. I have always been keenly interested in Catholicism since the bigger chunk of Christian history tends that way.As to the UFOs around their heads! Interference patterns and/or gold/gilding, shiney stuff in general is often associated with the divine -- all around the world from very early times! Don't know why. Where's Dap? He'll have the cognitive scoop!Or quite possibly they were just visited by space aliens. That's probably the explanation. Though ... we don't want to get you started down THAT road again! (I'm wearing my tinfoil cap, can you tell? It's VERY shiny!)Agape (Ooh, alien communications coming in now ....) posted 02/06/2008 at 16:25:47
Yes, sorry about the first link. The painting's on the site but you have to find it. This new site takes you right to it.http://www.u.arizona.edu/~zegurae/botticelli.jpghttp://cgfa.sunsite.dk/botticel/bottic15.jpg posted 02/05/2008 at 19:41:59
Here's a beter link to Primavera (I hope)http://www.u.arizona.edu/~zegurae/botticelli.jpg posted 02/05/2008 at 19:40:11
I was looking at a book on Botticelli, the Renaissance painter. The lovely "Primavera" is one of my absolute favorite paintings. In response to the preachings of Girolamo Savonarola, Botticelli shifted from painting light, mythological works to painting Pietas and similarly somber Christian themes. The difference between the two sets of works is quite striking. Of course, Botticelli is a great artist and both courses in his painting are quite beautiful. But it does show, quite graphically, the dividing lines between two currents of thought.http://www.abm-enterprises.net/artgall1/botticelli-primavera.jpghttp://cgfa.sunsite.dk/botticel/bottic15.jpgJesus wept. (Shortest sentence in the Bible.) Socrates laughed. He laughs in the Apology, his own trial, which he loses -- as surely as HeevenStevens "lost" among the Tinfoil hats. But one senses that Socrates might have as easily won -- that he possessed the skills to shape the verdict .... But he was not a sophist. So he drank the hemlock.I would say we need both. Some would say that makes me a poor Christian, but then even Augustine liked Plato. Socrates's laughter is very healthy and prudent. But Jesus wept. Socrates gives us no comfort in regard to civilian casualties in war, or even concerning a justice killing, as for instance Saddam Hussain's death sentence.What has any of this to do with science? I don't know. The Church was very unkind to Galileo, but his ideas were nontheless preserved and spread where eventually they prevailed. That blossoming also took place amidst Christian ideas. So it's complicated. Newton poured over theology, devoting as much or more of his attention in that direction than to his mathematics. Human beings can have complex motives.I like the debate here. Gracious, it's got me thinking about my faith so much more than I am accustomed to -- to which I am much indebted to my fine atheist interlocutors. You are sharpening my mind.Agape all. posted 02/05/2008 at 19:38:19
Am I the only Christian posting on this one? I've noticed that everybody seems to be a former something -- mostly Catholic. I can't help thinking that the assumption of atheism is chiefly in reaction against Christianity rather than purely in favor of scientific reason -- though I don't see reason and Christianity as hostile, indeed I approach Christianity as a rational faith.Well, anyway, just thought I'd toss out something about my own history. When I grew up it was Baptists. They decamped in the living room because an important family member was Baptist. They used to ask my parents their famous question about "have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior," and imply that eternity in the inferno was inevitable for most of homo sapiens. Thankfully, I became a Christian really despite my early exposure to these particular Baptists, who really had personal agendas of which they seemed to be quite unaware.I accepted Christianity through a process that began -- rather like science -- as curiosity. And while I have little information about other faiths, I am comfortable being a Christian. Yet I see no particular purpose in critiquing other religions. One lacks the "insider awareness" first off to even know what the other religions are to their adherents. And such criticism has little relevance to one's own faith. And there are just too many other religions. It would be to approach them as items at a buffet table. You deal in fragments and never see the entirety of any of them.As to the inferno, I do think there has to be some kind of divine justice. At least in light of so much human injustice, one hopes that there is. But the particulars of such a thing, its meaning, its manifestation are not things I think much about. Perhaps that makes me a milktoaste Christian. Who knows? I don't particularly judge myself either. I am a Humanist too. Perhaps these two ideas are in conflict? If so, I'm not aware of it. posted 02/05/2008 at 19:20:51
Dap, I don't follow. What happened to your science? posted 02/05/2008 at 19:02:32
Well, obviously I misinterpreted your earlier remarks. So I guess we don't agree. I don't find the Bible ridiculous, though my much esteemed atheist acquaintances here at Huff do. The Bible is not an easy read. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:58:38
I saw a UFO once, which my daughter on the other side of the family car saw very clearly. She drew a picture of what she saw later (at age 9) and it was a well drawn, classic image of one version of the "standard" UFO! Please note, however, that I use the term very literally -- the object was unknown. We saw it at rush hour and in a strange airspace to be seeing anything bigger than a Cesna. But what struck me later was this question of modern life: supposing space aliens really did visit earth. Depending upon the timing of their visit, they might prove to be only a most annoying distraction-- cause I'll guarantee you that nobody much cared what the mysterious object was! We just wanted an escape from bumper to bumper traffic! posted 02/05/2008 at 15:47:28
It's possible to persuade someone without teaching them, so possibly one could make the argument by entirely different, especially by non-logical means and gain their concurrence. But teaching is harder. It's the ol' bringing the horse to water thing. They were not thirsty for engineering facts. Still, people need to be exposed to ideas -- whether they "get" the facts or not. You fought a good fight. And you learned one hard lesson the only way anybody learns them. I think it's instructive regarding dogma. Much of it serves emotional ends, most of the time it's harmless. I don't think the tin foil hat crowd is a large enough demographic to effect the real issues of security. Politically it's the intelligent middle ground one needs to sway -- a demographic composed of Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- ahem -- and the conspiracy crowd will pass onto another topic that meets their needs, after this one fades. And so it goes. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:40:21
I am not Catholic so I learned about St Theresa in a round about way, but find her life very intriguing. However, this book, in characterizing the Catholicism of her generation of French people, relates an intellectual history whose themes are virtually identical to much that we've discussed in these forums. I've browsed the book & afterwards have begun reading from the beginning. An early chapter on Renan, Lamarrais, & Chateaubrian is very apropos. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:32:48
This answers my question about which "side" you address. Just curious, does this mean you're Hindu? posted 02/04/2008 at 17:36:59
A person could learn something about credulity. That's useful data, too. In regard to all argument (assuming that all the interlocutors are sane), a certain "je ne sais quoi" always pertains. People have emotional as well as intellual reasons. The emotional reasons are not always available to scrutiny, even to the particular individual. Sometimes it's the brain that tricks us, sometimes the heart.However, you did good. People need a little exposure to sanity first, before they come around. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:32:42
I completely agree. How about that?(And you didn't believe in miracles.) posted 02/04/2008 at 17:23:43
Amen Pandu! You are absolutely right! Only the dreamer can even report the dream, though it's narrative often is explained, interpreted or analyzed by others -- as was the case in the Book of Daniel or at Dr. Jung's psychoanalytical couch. The validity of such interpretations, likewise in the eyes of the beholder. BUT, I daresay, I dearly hope that the beholder's eyes count for something. I say this as an artist! Yikes, it's my bread and butter.I am more hopeful about the validity of senses. I don't recall whether your one of the atheists or of another camp, but speaking as a Christian I will certainly wish to give "evolution" its due and commend my senses for their mostly good working order.We are getting a little heady with philosophy. The senses, not perfect, nevertheless give trusty information. It takes some education to get into a real muddle like the one we're in, my friends!I really do think science and subjectivity can live in some kind of pleasant harmony. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:22:01
DapI was quoting you. You wanted me to leave "it" to you. It is none of it in our hands, dear Dap. Reality belongs to others. And this is a good thing. Muse likes to talk about philosophy but is unwilling to be put in charge! I have enough on my plate.Meanwhile you do not have to live on faith. We were discussing dreams, right? Some people claim never to remember dreams. Nothing to interpret! It's like me and math. Nothing to interpret! I am math-proof, for good or ill!That's not sophistry. I am not a Sophistical Muse. Agape. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:17:27
Perhaps it makes the load lighter. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:41:30
I love the question here. We do not recall our beginnings, and what really very early childhood memories we form are perhaps only accessible through brain waves that are not normal in adult consciousness (I read some tentative science about this once, about developmental changes in brain wave patterns). However, the mind does create its own sort of continuity -- more as sensation than in narrative. One feels as though one just always "was" though of course we know narratively that we were born, etc.The sense of rounded-out being comes evidently from the right hemisphere and strange things happen when people suffer right-hem injuries. Oliver Sacks has written prolifically on the topic with one of the best books being, Anthropologist From Mars.As to the fights among dogmas, it is sadly "natural" for human beings to fight. People chiefly fight their neighbors. One doesn't usually care particularly what other people are doing when those doings are not visible. It's one's neighbor that one learns to hate. Republicans and Democrats, Iraq v Iran, the French and the Germans, the Chinese and Korea, etc. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:40:06
You've written this other places so I must comment. Will you see it? Why would God knowing all about us give us cause for vaunted egos? The Bible describes God as "knowing when the sparrow falls," which doesn't exactly exalt human beings, "though we're also reassured that we are of more importance to God than even a sparrow."Navel gazing. Yeah, who needs it. But one's gaze is wisely directed at God.I would ask why the tendency to anthropomophize arises. I think it connects us in interesting ways to the rest of creation. It's seems to me a very positive manner of thought, in it's place. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:34:19
Practical pi like practical pie is for the consumption of many. If the Bible were as precise as you want it to be, would you be able to understand it? Forget about poor Muse, struggling to do arithmatic. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:29:38
Not strange at all. The Bible is speaking to innumerable human beings living in many diverses times and cultures. I think its remarkable the translatibility of the Bible -- not into other languages, but into other "horizons" of thought. String theory is our current Cosmology. Once is was Kepler, once Copernicus, once Ptolemy, etc. How would the Reality be accessible to each Culture -- of even the West (forgeting about everybody else) when it would be beyond their imagining? It's not a math book!Even our String theory is just mathematics. So, it's definitely off limits to me.The Bible speaks to other things. I once attended a Bible study class with a woman who was mentally retarded. Where else do the professors sit around the seminar table with people who are barely literate and learn together?Why is it important to know how reality works? It's important to some, but not to everybody. I learned an uncommon lesson in courage from that lady who was mentally retarded. She was in her 50s at the time. I will never forget her.I met her counterpart at the other end of life, a little girl age 6 who had Downs Syndrome who was also an amazing, spunky, daring person.The realm of human things is amazingly diverse and the Bible is more about that -- the human life on terra firma than it is about the nature of hydrogen and helium. Still it does not rule any of that out. I suspect hydrogen and helium are there too -- but only in various poetical disguises.Agape. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:27:50
stevesrantI'm not sure who said what either, but nice essay!We're sort of opposite in the conclusions we draw, but what an eloquent commentary on curiosity.And, thank you for pointing out the intriguing demarcation between humanity and nature. I don't quite agree -- or I'm not sure what I think actually. We are obviously inside nature, but are we not also in ways outside it? I think an argument can be made for our separateness. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:16:57
Dave24I quite disagree. It is popularly supposed that the Bible, for instance, makes scientific claims, as for instance, about creation. The "Creationists" seem to think so as well as their critics. I believe both camps are completely mis-reading the two Genesis stories. That itself needs to be noted: there are two versions. Please also note, I'm not saying that anyone is an infidel or likely to suffer eternal punishment for disagreeing with me. I'm fairly confident that God is not giving an exam, that knowing the "correct" answer as to the meaning of Genesis is not a ticket to paradise.It's true that "religion" is a complex of competing and often antagonistic ideas. But such is life.I agree with your first statement: "you can prove love by action." I think love for God can certainly begin with respect for the intellect. The ability to reason is a beautiful thing. Not everybody is cut out for deep thought, however. So, if a Creationist finds comfort in believing Genesis in a literal way, why would I disturb that belief? How does it injure me? I'm quite free to search out other meaning. Freedom is the key (which, thankfully, a democracy mostly provides!) posted 02/04/2008 at 14:13:23
Dap,This is one's "faith" in science. Since when is something "enough for you to know." Of course the contents matter. Better leave this one to the artists. How does a novelist create a story's plot? In some radically different way? Of course not. The dream content is very significant, revelatory, and a wonderful topic for study. However, it's difficult to see how science can add much to the study of the content.Though, who knows?Muse posted 02/04/2008 at 14:05:06
Hello stevesrantI don't follow your reference to dreaming, but it's one area -- still rather un-studied by science, perhaps unstudiable -- where the difference between things that can be recorded like EEGs and dream narratives yield wildly different results. The simple appearance of a certain kind of brain wave demonstrates that someone is dreaming, but tells us nothing about why people dream generally -- and really cannot tell us, I think, anything about the purpose of the contents -- the meaning -- of a specific dream. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:44:49
HS, I just recently began reading an very interesting bookhttp://www.amazon.com/Therese-Lisieux-Gods-Gentle-Warrior/dp/0195307216/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202075573&sr=8-1about Therese of Lisieux. It mirror many of the themes that we've debated on these various posts -- dealing with them from a 19th c perspective, where many of them originated.posted 02/03/2008 at 16:56:47
Many claims by religion have been misunderstood by science. The religious claims are not always about what you think they're about. The Bible, for instance, has nothing (that I'm aware of) to say about science. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:46:58
First Person Artist Willie Cole: An Art Installation Carrie Bradshaw would Love
The artist you've heralded has a very nice resume, I'll grant. Compare it with Van Gogh's. It's an interesting comparison. Which of them is the great artist?Van Gogh was an authentically great artist, and while he was unknown in his time, some of that came about by the combination of his problems of mental health and the very rigid marketing options available in 19th century France. But he had a natural audience, and ironically we see that audience today. Van Gogh is loved by ordinary people all over the world. You can buy a nice monograph on the artist in any Walmart anywhere. The people who buy these books and who love his images do not need to have the images explained to them. They get it. Not because we have "assimilated" Van Gogh's ideas (that is nonsense), but because Van Gogh was a humane and sensitive observer of life. People respond to the beauty, the order and logic of his pictures, their subject matter (which is not confusing or mysterious at all) and to the delicacy of life contained in them. Van Gogh is as accessible as Gerard David or as the great cave images of Lascaux. In contrast these shoes are "cute" -- one gets the gimmick of them. But that's it. There is nothing of substance in them and they are no different from the mountains of similar things available in the "art world."There is a real world outside the "art world," and that reality is the natural territory of real artists.posted 02/06/2008 at 17:39:25
I'm all alone here among these three other folks posting. I am wondering why you wrote about this guy. It's universally accepted by anybody who went to art school that this kind of assemblage thing is art. But it isn't art. I don't say this because I'm "conservative" which is the official Art World explanation for all defenses of "realism," but because I know what real art is. And his ain't it. Moreover these shoes in a pattern are ubiquitous now. One sees this kind of thing everywhere. It is a fad, and sadly not a particularly interesting one.I really doubt that the artist makes these things from an impetus coming from within himself. He is doing what's expected of him. When representation was recognized as the preeminent form (it remains the preeminent form for most of humanity, excepting the 80,000 people who subscribe to ArtNews), most art (usually painting) was not made by great masters. While there might be a real genius somewhere making humane art from old shoes in works that reach deep into the fondeur of the mind, I say the odds are rather against it. However, most representational artists while not geniuses still must possess a high level of skill to paint at all. Look at Turner, then look at Bonnington. The latter is not in the same camp as Turner, but at his best he gets close. By continually focusing our attention on the hip and trendy "School of What's Happening Now," we divert our attention from the kind of genuine visual inquiry that leads to great art or at least to almost great art. posted 02/06/2008 at 17:39:10
9/11 "Truthers" a Pack of Liars
What foolishness is this? The Sun??? Give me a break. Obviously, it's on the Moon.Sun .... I'm gonna be laughing about that one a long time.(Where do people get this stuff?) posted 02/03/2008 at 20:48:45
Ilk? Were you to actually attend to HeevenSteven's comments, geeze, you might learn something. He's an engineer making scientific statements which he supports with facts and references. And you throw Naomi Wolf rhetorical talking points back at him? Please. I hope you don't kid yourself that you are persuading anyone. posted 02/03/2008 at 20:22:41
RadicalWhigPerhaps you might do some research about how bin Laden amassed his fortune. It would tell you something about bin Laden's caves.I think your analysis of al Quida tells us everthing we need to know about your 9/11 conspiracy theory credentials.posted 02/03/2008 at 15:56:10
RadicalWhigI particularly like the obvious and common-sensical parts of your argument. I'm looking out the window now, and my common sense tells me that it's obvious the earth is flat.So, I guess it is.(And you thought religion had nothing to contribute to this debate, HeevenSteven.) posted 02/03/2008 at 15:52:36
HS, you rascal. The only sky god you'll acknowledge is John Pike.Well, it's Men in Black who are behind all this. Agent Scully? Agent Muller? Are you there? posted 02/02/2008 at 14:14:06
A family from my daughter's school was on Flight 77, husband, wife and their two kids. Also the son of a local university professor. And a woman from our community. They all died on 9/11 on Flight 77 at the Pentagon, along with Barbara Olson the wife of the US Solicitor General (and Bush's attorney at the time of the recount).I guess the cynical believe that Bush killed the wife of the man who helped him win the recount battle that led to his becoming president.Of course, Donald Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon when it was hit (a fact the truthers have conveniently forgotten). Only by a fluke, more people weren't killed. The Pentagon had recently undergone remodeling and that section of the building was only then going back into use. Much of the office space was still vacant or there would have been many more deaths. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:55:24
I love this. Gotta tell you. Speaking as someone who voted twice for the guy, arguing here at this Bush love-fest site, I just adore this.Wait a minute. I thought Bush was too "stupid" for words. Isn't that the official line of the Huff Po demographic? This guy is so dumb we're amazed that he walks and talks. (Though he was smart enough to beat both Gore and Kerry -- but I digress.)Yet ol dumb-bo is the Great Mastermind behind the greatest, most devastating attack on US soil.Sure. Geeze, when you explain it like that. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:41:07
Au contraire. Remember Dick Clark? The only person interviewed by the 9/11 commission who apologized for "having let you down"? Read his book. Compare it with Michael Scheurer's account. You can see how two key figures in the hunt for bin Laden disagreed over the particular actions that they felt should or should not have been taken to kill bin Laden -- this was PRIOR to 9/11. Clark had some cause to apologize -- at least according to Scheurer. But I don't want to spoil the suspense for you. You can read. Go read.http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1597971596/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201908908&sr=1-1 posted 02/01/2008 at 18:35:46
PuckspellHow about some EVIDENCE that the truthers seem conveniently to have forgotten? Remember that Bush "stole" the election (according to the losers). Who, pray tell, was at his side fighting Al Gore in court over the Florida recount? Ted Olson. Olson's wife Barbara, you might recall, died on Flight 77 that plowed into the Pentagon. Ted Olson was U.S. Solicitor General at the time. She had been scheduled to take another flight, but changed at the last minute to celebrate her husband's birthday. How does that factor into your conspiracy? Donald Rumsfeld was in his office when the plane flew into the building. Was Bush trying to bump off his Secretary of Defense along with his attorney's pretty young wife? (Olsen was 61 and his wife was in her forties. They'd been married since 1996.)Those two facts alone demonstrate that the Government Conspiracy has "stupid" written all over it. You have to be both gullible and cynical to the Nth degree to believe this stuff. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:29:51
You really are grasping at straws. So you think the Air Force could take out airliners with US citizens on them, no problem? This is almost amusing. The US is at war in Iraq (who are foreigners, okay) and the whole Democratic party and many others besides are pretty upset about it, you know. But the Air Force could just pop airliners full of civilians and we'd have narry a peep.Anomalies? You act as though the US government is sitting at the right hand of God. I don't think even Bush's supporters believe he has god-like powers. But evidently you think he should have them. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:08:26
OldOne, it sounds like you need to read up on Bin Laden. He was hardly a "diabetic cave dweller," etc. And his organization had already successfully taken out two African embassies and a big hunk of the USS Cole. So he was no novice. He was not a friend of the Saudis and has been trying assiduously to bring down the Saudi government for years. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:02:56
I meant the Deepak Chopra thing. This here. Oh, no debate. Just lots of swatting at imaginary flies. posted 02/01/2008 at 10:14:32
Now HeevenSteven, it obviously has not done that to me. Hmm, hmm. But to err is human. Let's just say these folks are very, exceedingly, more than average human.It would take a miracle, I agree, to get them to see the logic here. posted 02/01/2008 at 10:11:43
I missed an excellent debate. Sigh. I'll have to read it sometime at my leisure. Though I might need a tutor. Do you guys have bring in the quantum big guns? Geeze a little parting of the Red Sea is refreshing after that. Cecile B. Demille I can understand. Chuck Heston as Moses. Yeah!My speed.Anyway, howdy.posted 01/31/2008 at 20:20:54
condieshoesAirlines have such a rich history of economic failure that betting on their fall is a pretty good assumption almost any time. (Their very expensive to operate, you know.)If this item is counted as "evidence" of conspiracy, then the case for conspiracy is weak indeed. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:54:12
They would have to ship it to another planet to hide it, OldOne. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:49:10
How could they have searched for the remains of those who died on 9/11 without removing the debris? Perhaps you are looking at this exclusively through the lens of engineering. But all the people who died have relatives who wanted to be able to know definitely that they died and then bury whatever remains were found. It's part of people's grief and their need to put the event into perspective psychologically. And it's not at all difficult to understand. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:48:26
The Race-pectations Game
jstockPeople are so cynical. What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, my friend. Actually it was just a typo. Osama has been around in the news much longer than Obama, so my fingers have typed his name more times and hence remember his name's spelling more readily.But my enthusiasm for Obama is quite genuine, regardless of the coincidental similarity of names. Barrack Obama seems like a real person, honest, principled.And I hope he wins the Democratic nomination.I also like Huckabee for many of the same reasons I have given for liking Obama. The differences in their respective ideologies doesn't bother me given how both men are honest and statesmanly.posted 01/29/2008 at 17:40:23
Okay, I voted for Bush twice and I'm glad I did. And I do not discount Osama because black people in South Carolina voted for him. Indeed, the way I look at the numbers, a whole bunch of whites seem to have voted for him too.Would you have had South Carolina's black voters stay home?Duh.Hooray for Osama. I hope it gives him tons of momentum for the race ahead. Right now, this citizen who voted for Bush hopes mightily that Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided regarding who I'd like to see win on the Republicans side. I could vote for Obama. And even if I vote against him, he might win anyway. And I'd much rather that he was the Democratic winner than dreary Hillary.So, you see, my friends, if a supporter of President Bush can get excited about Obama, maybe South Carolina's black voters merely reflect the demographics of their state. But their support for him does not mean that they voted "on race." Maybe they just like the guy. Like I, just like the guy.What's so hard to believe about that? posted 01/26/2008 at 20:45:33
The "Soul Hypothesis" (Part 2)
See, the other atheists left just when it's getting interesting. I feel like Gladys Knight without the Pips. Where'd the Pips go?? posted 02/03/2008 at 16:42:20
E=MCsquared. Is it material or immaterial? Did it arise only with the humans? Or has it an independent expression? Calling my view a suspension of disbelief works because -- who am I? just your garden variety Muse? But this is classic Plato. Come on. Plato. We have to have firmer evidence than we possess to eliminate Plato's "Ideas" from the Cosmos. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:40:52
Atheists, where did you go? Especially Wondering. I wrote such a nice essay -- even Dap was in Raptures for a while.And I was particularly going to ask Wondering about the primes. Come on. How can we not believe in God, what with all these huge immaterial primes out there in the Cosmos of thought?? (He and the kids must be digging for dinosaurs again ....)Gotta love the primes. Riemann's hypothesis ....Atheists, I was just warming to the topic ....Hello? posted 02/01/2008 at 19:21:29
Ockham's razor is a little crude for cranial surgery. I don't see the bio-chemical as conclusive at all. We are going round and round. You are pointing to the neurons firing in John Doe's brain, but I'm talking about the contents of thought (which are immaterial).They are apples and oranges.These contents matter, that's what Jung adds (the uncontroversial aspect of Jung, his "world lit" side). Jung saw that there was a resurrection myth that pops up all over the place in different cultures. But he also realized that the particular clothing of the myth is also significant.It's like the difference between dreaming and monitering the EEGs of the sleeper. The latter tells you there's cerebral activity of different kinds. But it cannot predict the content. Henry James's cortex probably lit up like a Christmas tree when he worked on his novels. Still, there's a huge difference between "Portrait of a Lady" and "The Bostonians." posted 02/01/2008 at 19:15:42
Dap. I knew you couldn't possibly remain in that state of aporia. But I had you transfixed, if only (alas, sigh) for a brief, golden nanosecond.By the times, it would appear I had you stumped for about 12 hours.That's not bad. I'll take that.Agape,Muse posted 02/01/2008 at 19:04:32
Holy Cow. Dap, at a loss for words. I'm going to have to think about that one a while. Gracious. Now, I'm at a loss for words. It's contagious! posted 02/01/2008 at 10:20:57
I have a metaphor worthy of a Muse. A spider weaves a web without being taught. It is just encoded with the knowledge. Today we'd say it was programmed for web building. What are human beings programed to do? What is the web we weave? To know that we cannot turn our gaze away from myth. Quite the contrary, to find out we have to look into myth with the greatest care and lively perception.BUT! Once looking into the myth, there's always the "danger" of being persuaded by it. If your kids read Milton in college, there's always a danger of their becoming Christians since Milton meant his poem to be persuasive, and the "myth" of Christianity ITSELF means to be persuasive. It is paraphrasing Socrates in the Phaedrus (?) "an intelligent word ... that can defend itself and knows when to speak and when to be silent." Things like myth are not ineffectual because they appeal to us at the deepest levels of our being. Anyone who thinks Homer's Gods and Goddesses are old hat, just hasn't read Homer laterly. Enter into that world and its effects come alive again.So, goodness gracious Wondering, what shall we do? Should we, as in Plato's Republic, ban the poets from the City? Because there will always be those who listen to their music and will be swept away by it ....posted 01/31/2008 at 19:26:57
Thought experiment: assume Jung is right. Examining the contents of religion is like looking at data encoded on a micro-chip (the chip being our DNA and the architecture of mind). Surely such information about us would reveal something about our external circumstances (evolution, fate, intelligent design, whatever name you give it). We do not just toss that information away because some of it is offensive. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:19:30
Wondering,I missed the party, but reading your most recent posts set me thinking ....Actually we agree about religion's needing a shaking and that one who genuinely believes one's faith is true need not fear doubts. Religion needs to be open to criticism if it's an active, living thing and certainly there are churches that stiffle inquiry. But I cannot go so far as to connect religious belief to all the kinds of things that go wrong sociologically, even when they are done in religion's "name," since one has to admit the possibility that not all claims are equally valid. One's profession of faith could be bogus.But even were I willing to champion reason to the extent that you do, I would still urge caution in eliminating religion -- for one would have to examine religion's contents first to know what was being lost. Carl Jung (and later Joseph Campbell) persuasively demonstrated that different stories arise within cultures that are completely cut off from each other. So the Mayans had myths/religious ideas that parallel elements of Christianity, or Egyptian religion or whatever. Jung argued -- somewhat more controversially -- that the similarities derive from an "archetype" that is somehow intrinsically part of the psyche.If Jung is correct one would expect atheism to take on some of the qualities of a religion -- eventually. The "stealth religion" blog alleged something like that though I don't recall a reference to Jung. Such a manifestation of resurgent myth would not necessarily be recognized as such by its adherents -- it might appear "rational" and seamlessly connected to other "rational" assertions -- myth in reason's garments.I think the more prudent move therefore is to take religious motivation as a fact about human beings (whatever else Muse might believe it is). If we examine religion's contents and make them part of our meditation, we learn more about the humans.posted 01/31/2008 at 19:18:41
Dap, Dap, Dap. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:59:51
stevesrantI thought at first you were kidding about the Shroud/Leonardo connection. But your serious? It's not a claim that art historians would find persuasive. Leonardo is a famous name being attached to a controversial object, but there's nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with it. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:48:29
Actually mine's 10, but the toys still abound. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:37:29
I've just popped by at the moment and must go without being able to say much. But I will say this we agree upon one thing: religious people need to "be shaken up." And I'm trying to shake up some atheists also. (A whole lot of shaking going on.)That would be an incredibly healthy thing in my view. But more on that later.Muse posted 01/31/2008 at 11:36:30
And did you find any? posted 01/31/2008 at 11:32:28
I'll take marshmellows. Just in case. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:30:37
You're a born moderate! posted 01/31/2008 at 11:28:32
Goodness, you talked of much besides me. How shall I ever catch up? And quantum mechanics! Ooh la la. I never even took high school physics.Of course, HS has started recommended books again. I think he has stock in Amazon. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:27:53
To all my atheist friends, you are SO serious! But don't ever change. Don't ever change! God loves you just the way you are!Hit it, Ella --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4md2q-hEEo&feature=related posted 01/30/2008 at 19:00:17