19-02-2011, 08:03 PM
Ultimately, Albert, this is a matter of interpretation.
All I can offer -- yet again -- is the following caveat: Do not conflate what we know now with what JFK knew then.
Or as Phil Dragoo put it so memorably:
["The JFK quote] reads as 1958, not 2008, a half-century of Soren Kierkegaard's rear-view mirror to the contrary notwithstanding.
"That's why he's a tragic figure: because we are here looking back shouting, 'Duck!'"
The catharses brought about by Dallas are, thank God, powerful and lasting. But they came at the most terrible price, and to understand and benefit from them you must understand the nature of the place from which they carried us.
I have no problem whatsoever in agreeing that JFK and a handful of others in power here and around the world (Nikita Khrushchev, for instance) had more than an inkling of the Unspeakable -- but far, far less than a sophisticated understanding of the forces aligned against them sufficient to inspire the crafting and the delivery of the subtext some hear/read in these words of JFK.
I again remind you of RFK's post-Dallas "I thought I knew how the word worked, but I didn't" line. It took the murder of his brother to bring RFK to enlightenment.
JFK's enlightenment has come in another place.
I reiterate that the issue at hand is a matter of informed opinion. As I've written in the introductions to all of my DPF "hypotheses" threads, there are no certainties attached to those arguments. But there are probabilities to be assigned based on related empirical data.
Show me evidence from the established record that JFK had a sophisticated understanding of the forces James Douglass describes as the "Unspeakable."
Finally: Much earlier in this thread (posts 22 and 23 respectively), Greg Burnham and I politely agreed to respect each other's differing interpretations. "I suppose we'll just disagree on this one, Charles. That's OK, though," he wrote.
I responded, "Indeed it is, Greg. From impassioned, informed, honorable disagreement there arises tested, enlightened concensus."
And so I chose to leave it. Until Greg felt obliged to go all psychobabble on me.
I responded by putting him in his place, and again I tried to walk away. Then came his "fly landing on [him]" post of earlier today. Again I felt obliged to spank him, and so I did.
This sort of exchange between two would-be/should-be allies is most troubling -- especially insofar as nothing of scholarly substance seems to have been behind its initiation.
I won't prolong the exchange, but I shall reserve the right to respond in force to any additional kamikaze attacks by Greg or anyone else.
As always, Albert, I value your contributions -- even when we disagree.
Charles
All I can offer -- yet again -- is the following caveat: Do not conflate what we know now with what JFK knew then.
Or as Phil Dragoo put it so memorably:
["The JFK quote] reads as 1958, not 2008, a half-century of Soren Kierkegaard's rear-view mirror to the contrary notwithstanding.
"That's why he's a tragic figure: because we are here looking back shouting, 'Duck!'"
The catharses brought about by Dallas are, thank God, powerful and lasting. But they came at the most terrible price, and to understand and benefit from them you must understand the nature of the place from which they carried us.
I have no problem whatsoever in agreeing that JFK and a handful of others in power here and around the world (Nikita Khrushchev, for instance) had more than an inkling of the Unspeakable -- but far, far less than a sophisticated understanding of the forces aligned against them sufficient to inspire the crafting and the delivery of the subtext some hear/read in these words of JFK.
I again remind you of RFK's post-Dallas "I thought I knew how the word worked, but I didn't" line. It took the murder of his brother to bring RFK to enlightenment.
JFK's enlightenment has come in another place.
I reiterate that the issue at hand is a matter of informed opinion. As I've written in the introductions to all of my DPF "hypotheses" threads, there are no certainties attached to those arguments. But there are probabilities to be assigned based on related empirical data.
Show me evidence from the established record that JFK had a sophisticated understanding of the forces James Douglass describes as the "Unspeakable."
Finally: Much earlier in this thread (posts 22 and 23 respectively), Greg Burnham and I politely agreed to respect each other's differing interpretations. "I suppose we'll just disagree on this one, Charles. That's OK, though," he wrote.
I responded, "Indeed it is, Greg. From impassioned, informed, honorable disagreement there arises tested, enlightened concensus."
And so I chose to leave it. Until Greg felt obliged to go all psychobabble on me.
I responded by putting him in his place, and again I tried to walk away. Then came his "fly landing on [him]" post of earlier today. Again I felt obliged to spank him, and so I did.
This sort of exchange between two would-be/should-be allies is most troubling -- especially insofar as nothing of scholarly substance seems to have been behind its initiation.
I won't prolong the exchange, but I shall reserve the right to respond in force to any additional kamikaze attacks by Greg or anyone else.
As always, Albert, I value your contributions -- even when we disagree.
Charles
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene