The story also has a subplot about the Repression in Argentina. This subplot is conveyed extremely subtly in order to get around censors and prosecutors who would have removed any direct criticism and arrested the playright. The military is symbolized by a demented Angel who would crush any creativity and punish people for deviating from the norm.
Chris
]]>It's important to understand a document and its sections principles,
context, literal meaning, original intent, and historical developments
in its interpretation. Scalia as a sophisticated person is important
to listen to, but because he is sophisticated, radical and partisan it
is important to read him in context with others or balance his words
with someone like Ms. Smiths. He makes claims to an objectivity he
doesn't in fact possess. Which is the fault of many who claim an
objectivist position. They are not really objective at all. In fact their opinions are highly subjective.
Better than this is to use the principles of logic to ensure that principles are elucidated and applied as they are "originally" defined in the sense of being true principles. Ms. Smith appears to be critiquing Scalia, but she's really explaining how to reason from principle to practice.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=46
"And here, we reach the junction that leads many to embrace
Originalism. If the law is a chameleon, depending on the preferences
favored in each of these theories, and if such unsettled,
unpredictable law is the alternative to Originalism, while Originalism
offers stability -- a single, constant standard, rooted in the
foundation of the laws that we agreed to say -- it seems clearly
superior as the only way to uphold the rule of law. Originalism's
objectivity, again, is its appeal. Would that that objectivity were
genuine."
The one thing that any student, settled teacher, conservative,
businessman or anyone who isn't going through an adolescent period
fears; is the arbitrary, unsettled, "chameleon" situation. The value
of originalism lies in its professions of fealty to something
unchanging and steady; Never mind that it is hubris in some cases.
she writes:
"In Scalia's view, words mean what those using those words had in mind
-- literally, the particular examples they would have associated with
a word. The Constitution's framers "were embedding in the Bill of
Rights their moral values," he emphasizes. While he recognizes that
they sought "to guarantee certain rights," he believes that the
content of those rights is unchanging over time. The Eighth Amendment,
for example, outlaws those punishments that were considered cruel and
unusual by those particular authors when they enacted it."
"Scalia fails to appreciate that words (other than proper names)
designate concepts and that concepts, to use the terminology of Ayn
Rand, are open-ended. Rand does not mean that meaning is elastic,
allowing a given user to control a word's meaning. Rather, the idea is
that the referents of a word -- the actual, concrete instances of that
concept -- are not a fixed, immutable set determined by the experience
or knowledge of a particular speaker."
A concept, such as liberty, even the word "all men" expresses an
abstract. An abstract is a fundamental meaning, but the understanding
of that abstract must change with time. "All men are created equal" is
a concept that now pretty much includes women, and one day might
include alien beings with feathers for hair and bug eyes. The concept
itself is abstract. Thus when concepts evolve that is a good thing,
and an unavoidable thing.
She writes:
"When Scalia charges that judges who uphold any right that the
Constitution's authors would not have upheld are making unlicensed
additions to the law -- when he claims that "cruel" punishment means
only punishments that would be considered cruel by the Constitution's
authors, or when, similarly, he claims that the Equal Protection
clause does not require female combat troops or recognition of gay
marriage because the authors of that Amendment did not envision such
applications of it -- he is denying the open-ended nature of concepts. "
It is possible that concepts can be understood better with time.
"He is insisting that we adhere to the particular images that a law's
authors had in their heads when they used particular language. Thus in
his view, seemingly, a word is a symbol for a finite quantity of
concretes. "Cruel" means simply those actions that they regarded as
cruel; "equal protection" refers to the set of protections to which
they thought it referred."
"Unfortunately for Scalia, this is untenable. One obvious problem is
that, on this model of words' meaning, no communication could take
place: When Mary says "man" and Bill says "man," they will obviously
have encountered different men in their experiences. Their lists of
referents associated with the term will not match. Thus, in Scalia's
view, they are not talking about the same thing."
Wikipedia defines "referent" as "An object which is referred to as a reference (where the reference leads) is called a referent." In other-words, a referent is the things that a concept infers, that flow from the logic of a concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference
She continues:
"The implication of Scalia's view is that abstracting is merely
pointing. If asked what a particular word means, one could only
answer: "Here, this -- and this, and this." In effect, only if another
person can replicate the items in the speaker's head when he says
"man" by pointing to exactly the same concretes would the two people
be talking about the same thing. While it is, of course, important to
be able to point to the actual referents of any valid concept, Scalia
misses the fact that such pointed-to concretes are simply examples.
They do not exhaust the meaning of the concept."
The reason that concepts change with time is that the richness of the
illustrating scenarios is enhanced by the ongoing narrative of how
things actually happen as they are put to practice. The founders
understood slavery from the point of view of owners. They were certain
they didn't want to experience it in the abstract from Britain, but
some of them were perfectly willing to put off its abolition or even
to excuse or condone its practice. To muddy the abstract idea of "all
men are created equal" they floated out ideas such as race and bogus
theories about gender which allowed them to limit the application of
that concept to rich white males, then to white males, and only
belatedly and after death and conflict to all males, and eventually to
all males and females. Words express pure concepts, and sometimes the
"original meaning" explanations express only a primitive
understanding of that concept.
Wikipedia defines "exemplar" as "the concrete problem-solutions that" are encountered when a principle is applied to the real world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemplar
It is the exemplars and "referents" that define an abstract concept. This can even be reasoned by looking at the negative things people did. If George Mason had no intentions of ending slavery, they knew that the principles they expounded denied the righteousness of slavery. The fact that some of the people involved in creating the constitution were also involved in trying to prevent slave and free negroes from even reading the declaration of independence (In Charleston SC) is proof enough that those principles embodied incipient "referents" and exemplars from the beginning. When a theory implies something its "referents" are the things that flow from that theory. When a theory is applied, the solutions become exemplars.
In other words the very meaning of terms like "common sense" and "originalism" are based on one's references and exemplars, and those are based on concepts we hold in our minds. If we change our conception of reality, we can start to change the solutions we attempt to use to solve those problems that we are aware of.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=46
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_sc/finance_and_sex;_ylt=AtsXM8rG6nN47.CD6v0dm7dxieAA
Brain Scans showed: "The arousing pictures lit up the same part of the brain that lights up when financial risks are taken." The same study also showed that when "When that hub was activated by the erotic images, the men were far more likely to bet high on a random chance game that would earn them either a dollar or a dime. Each man made more than 50 gambles under brain scans."
Chris
]]>Both profile a world where self-interest is betrayed by moral confusion, and where people are making decisions of life and death in a world that seems darwinian.
]]> Anyone who studies the theory of Ichinen Sanzen, or the totally different but equally interesting theories around the Sephirot (or vessels) will soon see that this world is an interpolation of different forces. The "darwinian" existence exists. That existence is always present. Yet movies like "The Counterfeiters" and "There will be blood" tell us that even in the most despairing, depressing conditions people are people, and yet people can be more than mere animals."There will be blood" tells us that there can be hell in the heart of the digging for Gold. The main characters ruin themselves because they are driven by greed, lust, and insatiable desire that no amount of Gold -- or black gold -- can satisfy. The character played by Daniel Day Lewis builds a fortune -- and in the process kills people, drives off or kills family, and winds up rich, depressed, and alone. The preacher in the story uses religion to pursue wealth and loses his fortune in bad investments. Murder, betrayal, and oil. They seem to go together.
On the other hand the Counterfeiters is almost light-hearted by comparison. To the tune of beautiful tangos the story unfolds as a counterfeiter winds up in the death camp of Sachsenhousen and comes to be entwined with the German who caught him as a counterfeiter and a Jew. The story is about counterfeiting and comradery. The hero is willing to do anything to survive except rat out a fellow inmate and so goes along with one fellow inmate who sabotages the effort to counterfeit dollars. This eventually makes all of them "heroes". But mostly it reveals them as human beings surviving as human beings among animals.
Hell is in wealth. Heaven is in loving fellow human beings. Scientists have found that the strongest source of endorphins is the act of giving. Yet people seem determined to do anything to find oil, to defeat one another, and to destroy those who get in their way. It is said that the measure of the Buddha was in his actions as a human being. When are we human beings? Does it take awful situations to wake us up even a little?
Chris
]]>Want to read my response, continue...
]]> Chris;No it still takes action to become a Votary of the Lotus Sutra and
bridge the apparent illusory gap between a Buddha and a common mortal.
Lessening Karmic retribution:
http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=200&m=1&q=action
"I expounded this principle a long time ago, so it should not be new
to you. One of the six stages of practice in the perfect teaching is
the stage of perception and action. At this stage
"one acts as one speaks and speaks as one acts."
Those at the stage of being a Buddha in theory only and at the stage
of hearing the name and words of the truth believe in the perfect
teaching; but even though they praise it,their actions fail to reflect
their words. For example, countless people study the non-Buddhist
works known as the Three Records and the Five Canons, but not even one
case in ten million is found where a person governs society and
behaves as the texts teach. Thus it is very difficult to establish
peace in society. One may be letter-perfect in reciting the Lotus
Sutra, but it is far more difficult to act as it teaches...."
Chris
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed#Levels_of_being
* Mineral
* Plant
* Animal
* Man
Schumacher argues that there are critical differences of kind between
each level of being. Between mineral and plant is the phenomenon of
life, As Schumacher says though scientists say we should not use the
phrase 'life energy', the difference still exists and has not been
explained by science. Schumacher points out that though we can
recognise life and destroy it, we can't create it. Schumacher notes
that the 'life sciences' are 'extraordinary' because they hardly ever
deal with life as such, and instead content themselves with analysing
the "physico-chemical body which is life's carrier." Schumacher goes
on to say there is nothing in physics or chemistry to explain the
phenomenon of life.
For Schumacher, a similar jump in level of being takes place between
plant and animal, which is differentiated by the phenomenon of
consciousness. We can recognise consciousness, not least because we
can knock an animal unconscious, but also because animals exhibit at
minimum primitive thought and intelligence.
The next level, according to Schumacher, is between Animal and Man,
which are differentiated by the phenomenon of self consciousness or
self awareness. Self consciousness is the reflective awareness of
one's consciousness and thoughts.
Schumacher realizes that the terms - life, consciousness and
self-consciousness - are subject to misinterpretation so he suggests
that the differences can best be expressed as an equation which can be
written thus:
* 'Mineral' = m
* 'Plant' = m + x
* 'Animal' = m + x + y
* 'Man' = m + x + y + z
He went on to explain how these really can be thought of as dimensions
of being. Each "containing" the lower ones. Rather like Ichinen sansen.
I don't agree with everything he said, but it is all illuminating to
read and his economic theories are vastly superior to supply side,
objectivist, or "Libertarian/Austrian school" theories.
Chris
]]>But its not enough.
The peaceful warriors ball their fists and fight for supremacy.
In the name of the Dog God Devil; Dog-ma,
They stare one eyed and cock their faces.
Talk of dialog and peace, and throw glass stones.
It all started as play --
"we'd have world peace one day
We'd all be enlightened and brave,
If only other people would think like We"
It would be a wonderful food fight --
if they weren't so intent on killing...
And what? Over what?
What religion are they superior to?
No warrior of Allah can match their fanaticism.
No Jew wailing at his wall, can outdo this narrative of victimization
No man gambling in a casino can best this devotion to winning
No Christian can more betray his masters,
then these "warriors" of Soka.
Oh take an old wounded man on your shoulders,
parade him in his shame on the streets.
He was an old dog and ill, you were a pack,
and now you see enemies everywhere staring you back.
It was his religion that you defended
for all that you hunted him on the hill.
Where once there was pity and compassion,
the eyes are smoky and black
and there is no going back.
Where once there was hope and the Mystic Sutra,
there is now a movement seeking out enemies to defeat.
Where once you marched forward, now you are in full retreat.
And I am no more angry at you, than at an army of lemmings,
Is this where your master leads you?
To realms of megalomania and fear?
I don't think so.
It is just that nobody can tell you no.
Chris
Religious politics is still causing trouble. Our country is led by people who have no respect for human rights and who are situational liars. And we are in the middle of a collapsing financial bubble. We need progressive leadership -- and I'm not sure we will get it. Fear makes it possible we'll continue this "war" against the world and water-boarding.
But if we control our minds, take right action and don't give in, all these issues can be overcome. We can defeat fear.
Chris
]]>I think there are two points to learn here.
When dealing with other adults, which approach do you think works best? ]]> Everyone has a right to their opinions. However, authority has to come from one source, truth, which can be surmised from personal experience, historical or written documents, and is advanced by argumentation and logic.
In any case whether or not one actually has authority when talking to people depends ultimately on whether one can respect the truth of ones sources. One may have a a legal right to make up facts, invent nonsense, or abuse texts but never not a moral one. The immediate audience might believe a lie, but a lie remains a lie no matter how democratically accepted it is.
People may have the privilege to lie, but that is because none of us have the power of omnisciousness to judge all arguments. We aren't always able to judge what is fact and what is not, what is opinion and spin, or what is simply a different view of the same animal -- so there is plenty of room for disagreement. Thus the "privilege" of lying is not due to any inherent legal privilege or right but simply due to that gray area of human doubt, confusion and multiple views, and because the rest of us don't have the right to make judgments on factuality absent clear facts. The privilege of lying is simply a unintended side effect of the right of freedom we all possess and the poor quality of both natural and artificial sources of information.
We all have a natural born freedom to be idiots or wise people, savants or fools. However, this argument implies that there are some limits to how much people can spin and abuse the truth before they reach beyond reality into pure fiction or even lying. And the reason is that lies are about untruth, which are ultimately unsustaining, untenable, instable, and self destructive to the systems or communities that entertain them.
Chris
]]>Still my heart isn't in trying to explain why Nichikan's teachings should be abandoned or redeemed. First I still don't have all the source material. To properly critique a person's ideas we need them in our own language. I'll start reading again. I miss the hope that the teachings of the Lotus Sutra bring, and that especially those of Nichiren, Dengyo and Nichiren's disciples offer.
More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10626679
http://zzpatarchive.bravehost.com/dec_2005/john_dean_interview.html
David Addington:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/04/politics/animal/main3231615.shtml
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_s._addington
John Yoo: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/yoo.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2005/12/28/olbermann-pushes-impeachment-talk-compares-nsa-spying-authoritarian-m
It turns out that scams and Snafus have been a regular way that business insiders bilk and con the rest of society on a periodical basis; have done so
throughout our history, and continue to do so. Those of us who buy the
dream that America is a land of opportunity like Beverly Hillbillies
regularly make the mistake of thinking that we are welcome in a new
land for ourselves and abilities and not solely for our money until it
is parted.
I'll start out with a classic scam. Everyone remembers that famous
scene of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific being joined in 1867? Well the
process of building the railroad bankrupted the Union Pacific, but not
the top officials of the Union Pacific. As the author of this website
says....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/sfeature/sf_scandals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal
"The Crédit Mobilier scam was born out of a simple reality: in the
1860s, the U.S. government wanted a transcontinental railroad more
than investors did. While a railroad across the Rockies had a glorious
air to it, the project also carried an enormous amount of risk, and
risk is generally something investors prefer to avoid. As a result,
when Congress chartered the two companies -- the Union Pacific and the
Central Pacific -- that would build the transcontinental railroad
toward each other, it had to make the deal as attractive as possible.
(Hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, by all indications, also
had something to do with the legislators' largesse.) By the time
construction on the Union Pacific really got going (after an initial
attempt quickly ground to a halt), the Union Pacific had been given
huge land grants for each mile it completed, mineral rights on the
land, and hefty subsidies for construction. The result was that what
had previously looked a fool's errand suddenly became a seemingly sure
thing."
They saw that the railroads, while looking like a sure thing, were
really a risky investment, and saw this as an opportunity to make
money and bilk more gullible investors.
"Paying Themselves to Build It"
"Not sure enough for the men who controlled the Union Pacific, though.
There was still the chance, after all, that, even with the subsidies
and land grants, running the railroad might not be a profitable
endeavor. In fact, Thomas Durant, who was vice-president of the U.P.
in its early days, was convinced that all the real money to be made
was in constructing the road, not operating it. So Durant and his
fellow promoters they came up with a seemingly foolproof plan: instead
of paying outside contractors to build the railroad, the U.P.'s
biggest stockholders would just pay themselves. They took over an
ephemeral construction company, the Crédit Mobilier of America, which
just happened to win the contract to build 667 miles of Union Pacific
railroad. The Crédit Mobilier charged the railroad tens of millions of
dollars more than the actual cost of construction, all of which went
right into the pockets of the men who were supposedly running the
Union Pacific. By the time they were done, they'd cleared at least $23
million (and perhaps considerably more), and the U.P. was on the verge
of bankruptcy. Everyone who had invested in the railroad but not the
construction company found themselves with nearly worthless securities
on their hands."
http://www.columbia.edu/~rr91/1052_2002/lectures_2002/new_south2.htm
This same scenario has played out time and time again. Wall Street
Insiders have learned how to bundle worthless loans (recent real
estate fraud) and sell them as "sure" securities. How to scam public
utilities (Enron), "privatize" government owned utilities and business
out of existence, and convert publicly traded or owned value to
private property -- over and over again -- usually with the help of
people nominally in charge of protecting those assets.
"In 1867, Dr. Thomas C. Durant was replaced as head of the firm by
Congressman Oakes Ames. In that year Ames allowed members of Congress
to purchase shares at face rather than market value, the same people
who voted the government funds to cover the inflated charges of Crédit
Mobilier. Ames' actions became one of the best-known examples of graft
in American history."
Thomas C. Durant was the smart one here. He saw his mark, made his
scam, and got out, leaving others holding the bills.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/peopleevents/p_durant.html
"The Doctor remained ever slippery. After the lines joined at
Promontory Summit, Utah, Oliver and Oakes Ames prepared to oust Durant
once and for all. Durant beat them to the punch, however, resigning
his position, moving onto new railroad projects and new fields of
plunder."
"The story was introduced to the public arena during the Presidential
election campaign of 1872 by the newspaper New York Sun, which was
against the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant. Henry Simpson McComb, (a
future executive of the Illinois Central Railroad) an associate of
Ames, had leaked compromising letters to the newspaper following a
disagreement with Ames. It was claimed that the $47 million contracts
had given Crédit Mobilier a profit of $21 million and left Union
Pacific and other investors near bankruptcy."
http://elections.harpweek.com/1876/Events-1876.htm
The Credit Mobilier scandal burst an investment bubble (like the Enron
Scandal, the Internet Bubble, and the Housing Market bubble) and
presaged the depression of 1873, which started:
"The depression of 1873 resulted in about 15 percent unemployment
among workers; and thousands of farmers were forced to foreclose when
the Northern Pacific Railroad financier Jay Cooke filed bankruptcy.
This economic downturn would persist through the next four years."
Jay Cooke's failure was an example of SNAFU. His banking house was
built on loans to Railroads. There was overbuilding of railroads. The
Credit Mobilier Case was investors parasiting on SNAFU. His case is
more like what happened to the Panama Canal. Credit Mobilier is part
of how SNAFUS occur.
Further reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Jay-Cookes-Gamble-Northern-Railroad/dp/0806137401
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/sig-indv.shtml
She talks about the existential quandary that Jews were put into by emancipation and then goes on to talk about how Jews reacted to social anti-semitism. What is more important here than the history itself are the processes. Some Jews chose to stick together and to not assimilate. Some chose to rebel against being labeled as Jews and to try to break the stereotypes labeled against them and did their best to be "exception jews". Some chose to go along with those stereotypes and were quite willing to be "pariahs". All three courses only served to reinforce the stereotypes and give credence to the false and abusive narratives that the Anti-Semites were developing.
]]> She talks about the contributions made by Disraeli and the Rothschilds to the anti-jew narrative. Disraeli, apparently, partly because he was a convert to Christianity, and partly because he knew how to use people's prejudices to help himself advance. According to her, some people of the time became "parvenues" "one that has recently or suddenly risen to an unaccustomed position of wealth or power and has not yet gained the prestige, dignity, or manner associated with it", and some became rebels or "pariahs." And they were invited to salons and enjoyed because they were different from other members of society. Most emancipated Jews dealt with their emancipation by trying to make their religion a private thing.But along with this difference, there was a slide in meaning. "Crime" had once been a definition of behavior. A person might be a bad person for what they did and go to jail, but in the 19th century crime became "vice" and "bad" went from sinning to being "vice" -- under the general decline in morals of the third republic
and vice became a condition that labeled human beings. In this context anti-"Jew" beliefs transformed from social anti-semitism based on purported religious crimes to But this acceptance transformed the "crime" of being of the Jewish Religion to the "vice" of being a Jew.
In our own time we are seeing this slide again. Homosexuals are seen as people who are bad, not because of what they do in public, but because of what they are. Increasingly our laws try to arrest people for what they are thinking and feeling, and "who they are" rather than what they are doing or planning to do. The result is that we are sliding down a road that parallels Weimar Germany or Third Republic France.... And venal politicians are quite willing to look for scape goats for their own treachery, and greed....
It is frightful.
]]>In her opening chapter on "The Origins of Totalitarianism" Hannah Arendt talks about the sophists of ancient times and compares them to those of these modern
times and she concludes:
"The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of the arguments at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality. In other words, one destroyed the dignity of human thought whereas the others destroy the dignity of human action. The old manipulators of logic were the concern of the philosopher, whereas the modern manipulators of facts stand in the way of the historian. For history itself is destroyed, and its comprehensibility -- based upon the fact that it is enacted by men and therefore can be understood by men -- is in danger, whenever facts are no longer held to be part and parcel of the past and present world, and are misused to prove this or that opinion.1"
Obviously this bears on arguments in the present time as well. This passage struck me deeply, and came to mind during an argument I was having over Jimmy Carter's recent criticism of the president. In both cases, people were torturing language and reality to make violent claims justifying violent actions. In our times Carter is denouncing Torture in no uncertain terms....
]]>
CNN reported:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/10/sitroom.03.html 2
"In one interview yesterday, Carter accused President Bush of
abandoning the basic principles of human rights, engaging in torture,
and lying about it. In another, he called Vice President Cheney a
disaster for our country and a militant who is "trying again to
promote once again what might well be a counterproductive and
catastrophic military venture."
BLITZER: "President Bush said as recently as this week the United
States does not torture detainees."
CARTER: "That's not an accurate statement. If you use the
international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly
in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
was promulgated."
"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we
don't violate them. And we can -- you can make your own definition of
torture and say we don't violate it."
BLITZER: "But by your definition, you believe the United States, under
this administration, has used torture."
CARTER: "I don't think it, I know it, certainly."
BLITZER: "So is the president lying?"
CARTER: "The president is self-defining what we have done and
authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes.3"
Someone responded to my quote of this with the following complaint:
"He also says that Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians are the
victims. Go figure."
But of course, the fact that we disagree about evaluations, opinions, doesn't change the facts. Carter has facts that prove his case. I may disagree strongly with Carters opinions about those facts -- but that doesn't change them or diminish the need to take heed of them.4
Footnotes and further readings.