6 ms·

Rhetoric is easy. Ironically, that itself is also rhetoric. You didn't even address anything I said, can not point what makes what I said mere rhetoric either,

Rhetoric is easy. Ironically, that itself is also rhetoric. You didn't even address anything I said, can not point what makes what I said mere rhetoric either, but just dismissed it all with that statement. So maybe even if there are solutions, even if they get posted in plain sight of you; as long as you're trying hard to not see them, you won't. What you're really saying is "give me solutions which keep me and my current outlook intact", and I don't see a reason to automatically assume that's possible or desirable. Solutions please. The solution to what, exactly? To drummed up fear? To hypocrisy and double standards? That's all just in the mind, and as Bill Hicks said, I recommend sit-ups. Or do you mean the fires that in large parts don't just get fueled, but were started by the very people who claim to protect from them? from your other post: The lack of solutions itself is a sign that no one has anything better to offer than what the NSA is currently upto. Does this not also apply to your comments? Why aren't you making the comments you want to see, instead of "crying" about the problems with the discussion? Because it's not that easy, is it? Also, this is hardly an issue everybody is completely informed about, much less in the mainstream. Talking "solutions" now, instead of simply talking and see where that leads, strikes me as premature. You can't change a century of statism and the shrinking of the individual overnight with a "solution". We need to evolve out of consumerism and passivitiy, out of confusing symbols and things, not just consume the right change or come up with the correct symbol. We need to overcome atomization and rediscover solidarity instead of better skinner boxes, and that may take more than a generation even. If it is something you or I can fully experience in our lifetime, it is not aiming high enough IMHO. If it is something that can be explained to someone without all of attention span, intellectual honesty and passion, it is not worth a second thought. And in a process that involves all people on the planet, I would not ever hold my breath to ever have a full explanation of the full picture, or expect a full map before I even do one step. But I can get to know myself and my immediate surroundings, see how I feel about each and act on those. To me that is infinitely better than a full, but false explanation of how the world is, which is exactly what most people operate on, stories that cease to exist the moment they're no longer told. This leads to incredibly insecure people, who go insane as soon as the jukebox who tells them who they are goes silent, which in turn leads to all sorts of nonsense. As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Oh, the irony of complaining about "rhetoric" and then expecting a "solution, pronto". My "solution" would be, hmmm, we all read and implement the writings of Erich Fromm and Marcus Aurelius, get to know ourselves, all 7 billion of us. Then we have a second round of discussions. If you don't like it, give me a better one.

graycat 13y ago
Now, now, now, which Fromm document did you have in mind? My favorite is his TAOL. That's the one?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  There is nothing I read of him that I didn't utterly love, so I'd recommend whatever is easily obtainable, it's all good. But "The Sane Society" particularly comes to mind.
  - graycat 13y ago
    His 'The Art of Loving' was hands down one of the best things I ever read. He explained a lot to me about people, motivations, personality, women, etc. A lot. Some of his explanations were shockingly succinct but from decades of my checking empirically right on target. To me in that book, he is fully credible. I can guess how he got the insights: Be a bright guy, have a good background in what was known, at least empirically, at the time about psychology and psychiatry, do a lot of clinical psychology, listen to a lot of people, and identify the main issues and forces in common. Now I can look at events A, B, and C, from Fromm find the intuitive, qualitative version of the conditional probability of event X given events A, B, and C -- P(X}A, B, C) -- when this conditional probability is high, take X as a candidate explanation, look at some more data, and often conclude that Fromm nailed it again.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Before reading Fromm, I never thought about the difference between having and being; but once seen it can hardly be unseen. Like when he talks about idolatry or God, with a point and seriousness and as atheist, or the distinction between necrophilia and love of life -- before Fromm necrophilia was something out of gross jokes to, not anything I could seriously ponder, but now I'm thinking we're just so deep into all that, so deep down the rabbit hole, that the truth hurts too much, but he never exaggerated even one bit. for example ( from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s ) : [..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did. Nobody wants to hear that. I don't want to hear it either. If I read it in a book which otherwise is telling me many things that are obviously wise and come from a good motivation, I can ponder it. If someone just says that about me, to my face, I defend myself before I fully heard what was said. But it's true. He goes on: I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general. But if you can really see that every one of us, carries all of humanity, the good and the evil, within himself, then indeed is very hard to be a fanatic, then indeed it's very hard to be a judge, then indeed would follow, a deep understanding, if not love, of your fellow man. Which is part of being truly a person. Bam. Consider how far this is from the maturity of our so called leaders and us, how far away from even our highest standards. The fact that this stuff comes across as cheesy rhetoric so easily, is just testament to how lost we are. Sorry for rambling, but I can't deny it, I love that dude, and I honestly think everybody should at least try to read him because they might, too.

graycat 13y ago

Now, now, now, which Fromm document did you have in mind? My favorite is his TAOL. That's the one?

PavlovsCat 13y ago
There is nothing I read of him that I didn't utterly love, so I'd recommend whatever is easily obtainable, it's all good. But "The Sane Society" particularly comes to mind.
- graycat 13y ago
  His 'The Art of Loving' was hands down one of the best things I ever read. He explained a lot to me about people, motivations, personality, women, etc. A lot. Some of his explanations were shockingly succinct but from decades of my checking empirically right on target. To me in that book, he is fully credible. I can guess how he got the insights: Be a bright guy, have a good background in what was known, at least empirically, at the time about psychology and psychiatry, do a lot of clinical psychology, listen to a lot of people, and identify the main issues and forces in common. Now I can look at events A, B, and C, from Fromm find the intuitive, qualitative version of the conditional probability of event X given events A, B, and C -- P(X}A, B, C) -- when this conditional probability is high, take X as a candidate explanation, look at some more data, and often conclude that Fromm nailed it again.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Before reading Fromm, I never thought about the difference between having and being; but once seen it can hardly be unseen. Like when he talks about idolatry or God, with a point and seriousness and as atheist, or the distinction between necrophilia and love of life -- before Fromm necrophilia was something out of gross jokes to, not anything I could seriously ponder, but now I'm thinking we're just so deep into all that, so deep down the rabbit hole, that the truth hurts too much, but he never exaggerated even one bit. for example ( from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s ) : [..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did. Nobody wants to hear that. I don't want to hear it either. If I read it in a book which otherwise is telling me many things that are obviously wise and come from a good motivation, I can ponder it. If someone just says that about me, to my face, I defend myself before I fully heard what was said. But it's true. He goes on: I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general. But if you can really see that every one of us, carries all of humanity, the good and the evil, within himself, then indeed is very hard to be a fanatic, then indeed it's very hard to be a judge, then indeed would follow, a deep understanding, if not love, of your fellow man. Which is part of being truly a person. Bam. Consider how far this is from the maturity of our so called leaders and us, how far away from even our highest standards. The fact that this stuff comes across as cheesy rhetoric so easily, is just testament to how lost we are. Sorry for rambling, but I can't deny it, I love that dude, and I honestly think everybody should at least try to read him because they might, too.