20-06-2012, 04:16 AM
Jeffrey, "that dog" (your thinking and logic) "don't hunt".
Carolyn Baker, noted blogger, author, asked the attendees at a recent workshop "if they could hold ambiguity... if they were prepared not to know? She suggested that what needed to happen, in the midst of the convergence of crises whose outcome and specifics could not be known, was the purposeful creation of beauty, music, dance, poetry, the visual arts, the creation of radical joy and, especially, by delighting in contemplative nature. She called it "peak psychotherapy": we are going to have to offer it up ourselves rather than rely on it being trucked in from somewhere else on the fumes of increasingly rare and expensive petrol and available only at high price." [See the blog entry based on my attendance at that event: http://summonthemagic.blogspot.com/2012/...dance.html ]
But holding off conclusion based on an "apparent" lack of evidence is not a new wrinkle in this game; you didn't invent it. Indeed, the injection of doubt is an old wrinkle. How long will you maintain your doubt? It's been ten years now. Do you think you'll have some insight by the year 2060 (the equivalent of the same period of time spent on debating the events in and around Dealey Plaza). I'm a Salandrian.
"Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged --- and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize --- the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting [the OCT] --- the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the [OCT].... We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare- state power which[committed the foul evil deed].... We can no longer afford to shield ourselves...." [ http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back..._text.html ]
"We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless." [ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfonzi.htm ]
Key words: "blatantly obvious", "openly arrogant"*, "transparent"...
* Openly arrogant, as exemplified here today: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/
Note that I am not likely to waste a lot of time playing thread tag ("you're it") with someone who doesn't address the points made in the interaction.
I've been doing this for too long, and there are more important things in life right now.
Carolyn Baker, noted blogger, author, asked the attendees at a recent workshop "if they could hold ambiguity... if they were prepared not to know? She suggested that what needed to happen, in the midst of the convergence of crises whose outcome and specifics could not be known, was the purposeful creation of beauty, music, dance, poetry, the visual arts, the creation of radical joy and, especially, by delighting in contemplative nature. She called it "peak psychotherapy": we are going to have to offer it up ourselves rather than rely on it being trucked in from somewhere else on the fumes of increasingly rare and expensive petrol and available only at high price." [See the blog entry based on my attendance at that event: http://summonthemagic.blogspot.com/2012/...dance.html ]
But holding off conclusion based on an "apparent" lack of evidence is not a new wrinkle in this game; you didn't invent it. Indeed, the injection of doubt is an old wrinkle. How long will you maintain your doubt? It's been ten years now. Do you think you'll have some insight by the year 2060 (the equivalent of the same period of time spent on debating the events in and around Dealey Plaza). I'm a Salandrian.
"Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged --- and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize --- the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting [the OCT] --- the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the [OCT].... We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare- state power which[committed the foul evil deed].... We can no longer afford to shield ourselves...." [ http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back..._text.html ]
"We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless." [ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfonzi.htm ]
Key words: "blatantly obvious", "openly arrogant"*, "transparent"...
* Openly arrogant, as exemplified here today: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/
Note that I am not likely to waste a lot of time playing thread tag ("you're it") with someone who doesn't address the points made in the interaction.
I've been doing this for too long, and there are more important things in life right now.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"