Heaven sent the promised land
Looks alright from where I stand
'Cause I'm the man on the outside lookin' in
Waiting on the first step
Show me where the key is kept
Point me down the right line because it's time
To let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Flash the readies
Wot's uh, the deal?
Gotta make it to the next meal
Gotta keep up with the turning of
Mile after mile
Stone after stone
You turn to speak, but you're alone
A million miles from home, you're on your own
So let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Fire bright by candlelight
With her by my side
If she prefers, we will never stir
Someone said, "The Promised Land!"
So I grabbed it with both hands
Now I'm the man on the inside lookin' out
Hear me shout,
"Come on in!
Wot's the news?
Where ya been?"
'Cause there's no wind left in my soul
And I've grown old
- Roger Waters
clenchedfist00: what are everyone's thoughts on ... parents living vicariously through their children? is it common? natural to some degree? how do the patterns set by it translate into the child's life and identity? is it possible to ever become something other than a vicarious stand-in for your parents' dreams if that is what you were born and raised to be?
View all 10 posts
Brandijoi12 in reply to clenchedfist00: lol @ what you said to Mush, Clenched. I'll give my opinion. I teach my kids that they can be what they want to be. I don't encourage or discourage them in the direction their lives should go. I make them do well in school so that every possible opportunity is available, but I'm fully aware of it being their lives, not mine. I have hopes and dreams for them, but they're unaware of what they are. I never want them to feel pressured into becoming something they aren't happy with to please me. I do let them know that the best route to take is to do something they love.
mushin_stability: I see your questions above as an excuse for anyone who finds themselves at the whims of their parents. The only reason someone may feel they are being lived through vicariously is because they havent the strength to set their lives in their own direction. Nor have they created strong enough personal boundaries. Its a really sad state of affairs to blame someone else for your own problems. Having realized the vicarious nature, it becomes the duty of the agent to grab hold of their own autonomy. Anyways I don't need to be insulted for posting personal opinions
clenchedfist00: "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white.
The absurdity of disquotation reveals a fundamental trait of language: that any word, phrase or sentence that has some relation to the world can only be stated. In attempting to adopt a metalanguage in which we say WHAT it is related to, and what the relation IS, we automatically adopt language equivalent in meaning to the original semantic unit. We can only give signs - in trying to say what they signify or refer to we just swap the sign for an equivalent sign.
It is like being asked what the sign "red delicious apples" refers to in a grocery store and pointing to the apples. But I can then ask what your pointing gesture refers to. And you could only point again. The pointing gesture is equivalent in meaning to the sign. And often ambiguities can be resolved by pointing - but the pointing gesture itself is just as ambiguous, semantically, as that which it is substituted for!
"Point to an object. Now point to its shape. Now its color. How did you do it?" (Wittgenstein)
Meaning cannot then be stated but only "shown," as Wittgenstein maintained. It can be shown in many ways - by providing a definition (semantically equivalent phrase), by pointing, by giving examples ("Plant" means things like trees, grasses, shrubs, etc). Sometimes we can just use the word in a sentence (as is done often in dictionaries): "Charlie played with his TOYS until the teacher announced that recess was over."
theKnaveofNevermore: i,m at a loss to understand how i missed this, . the kind of highly specific language nuances that are suggested here would only really be required, i think, when two people of wildly divergent cultural norms regarding communication and social understanding confronted one another. it puts me to mind of a star trek the next generation episode where picard was alone on the planet surface with the captain of an alien space ship, it was a first contact scenario and the two had zero common frame of reference were language was concerned, the alien communicated in symbolism which was fine among its own kind where the common history of story telling was handed down and was common knowledge, ( common knowledge is absolutely key) picard was at a loss to understand until he realized that the names and places the alien was referring to were essentially meaningless window dressing. the actions in the dialogue were what was important and infact the entire point of the exchange. the point being, two strangers standing together as allies against a common foe. until such time as the walls fall. commonly understood specifics is the key to humans understanding one another and this is something we learn from birth, even before we speak we are eyes and ears absorbing the world around us. learning. and our eyes are as important as our ears as much of human communication deals with gestures and vagaries. the learning curve is bent that much further when we encounter cultures that differ that much more from our own, for instance, in india the sideways head wobble is relative to the european nod of agreement. not knowing this makes the gesture comical and meaningless. with out commonality and specifics language and understanding is more of an adventure than most people are willing to deal with. lol
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: john searle tells a story of when he was in yugoslavia or some nearby nation and his vehicle broke down, the problem was the crankshaft was broken, but as he didn't know the native language he was forced to do an imitation of a broken crankshaft, which conveyed his message successfully ... it struck him that if A) he is able to get his hearer to understand that he is trying to communicate something, and B) get him to understand WHAT it is he is trying to communicate, then he's succeeded in communicating
this same formula does not work outside language and communication, i can't become president by making it known that i want something, and that the something is to become president ... but with communication only those two things are needed
clenchedfist00: common knowledge there sounds a lot like what searle calls the "background," all sentences are understood against a background of countless things that both speaker and hearer know and understand
View all 11 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: no worries, lol mint. sadly i have not mastered the art of hash tagging, full paragraphs destroy the aesthetic and general point of the exercise. ha. but i hear that clench, i and i have no doubt you,re beat. 12 is a long stretch. but you will get your sea legs and your body will get accustom. i was not previously aware of hubert dreyfus but i did read the post. i shall seek out more of his work, he does seem to have been a significant figure in the philosophic community, despite what the french may think. lol.
theKnaveofNevermore: i think you are right clench, we have within us genetic memory, it is that facet of consciousness that is hard wired into our DNA , and we do not need to be taught at all, it is simply in our bones and was addresses by carl jung ( the same cat who brought us synchronicity, interestingly) that more than physical traits may be passed from ancestor to descendant, the child repulsed by the sight of a snake, a thing she has never seen and has no reason to fear, but she does. we are far more than the sum of our parts in most respects and the physical body does it seem come with an instruction manual, the logic that allows us to know how to use the arms and legs we were born with. the information is there buried so deeply in our genetics we could never be aware of it on any level out side of the realm of philosophy. i have been reading about the zoroastrians of iran, the first, ( as we currently understand it, have found no evidence to counter the claim) major religion to embrace monotheism as we understand it today. in many ways it seems the actual template upon which christianity was founded, they had their concept of heaven and hell, a single paternal god reigning above and there was also evidence of the recognition of some form of messianic event or prophecy. all of this almost 700 years before the event at bethlehem. interestingly the zoroastrians faith thrived in then persia up to the 7th century when muslim expansion but an end to them. it would not be unreasonable to believe this cycle , this paradigm and configuration of belief, had actually played it self out before the zoroastrian record of its existence came to light, and perhaps there is evidence yet to be discovered that would point the tale of the heir of god traveling among us born of the single father above, and this is a narrative told and retold, the names and faces applicable to the time. that the fable of man is the story of his desperate and needful grasping of the intangible. the ultimate accepting of a power greater than himself and out side of the world he can see and understand. the recognition of dreams.
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: most religions follow similar patterns, the similarities are often striking
father, son, holy spirit (christianity)
buddha, dharma (teaching or truth) and sangha (community of believers) (buddhism)
the buddha is often seen as the fully transcendent reality (buddha mind), mirroring god the father ... jesus the son is theologically the Word, mirroring the dharma ... and the holy spirit is god as he guides the church through history, mirroring the sangha
the theology on the surface is different but i think the spiritual functions of each correspond pretty much exactly, the fully transcendent, the revelation of the transcendent to humankind, and the guidance of the believers through history and into the future
religion has a grain to it and i think they become more and more similar the more mature they are
View all 27 posts
clenchedfist00: what i'm talking about is what to think about the fact that life in general involves so much suffering, the fact that it is so prevalent, so unlimited in potential degree ... not how to respond to the particular sufferings in our lives or the lives of others - the two may sometimes coincide but cannot always, and often won't
i see nietzsche as answering the first question, and though perhaps he conflates it with the second, his main contribution lies in the first category, which belongs to what i see as one of the fundamental traits of human nature, the fact that we conceive of "life" as a whole, a single entity, and our lives are attempts to respond to it in various ways ... one of the primary aspects of life as a whole that we respond to is the prevalence and potentially unlimited degree of suffering it tends to involve, special cases notwithstanding
that doesn't mean, if our response is that it can create virtue, that we tell those who are suffering to "toughen up" ... perhaps in many cases the best, even the only, way to bring out the potential of virtue development in an instance of suffering is compassion and love, even an attempt to alleviate the suffering ... a hardship borne with the company of loved ones caring for you and trying to help will perhaps induce virtue, where such potential would remain locked if the suffering were borne alone
clenchedfist00: walkin i wouldn't worry too much, i believe you were raised with a response that, if needed, will come bubbling to the surface ... if it is not needed, then you will have had a blessed life ... all of this is just my opinion, who am i to say what human nature is and describe it from the outside as if i were its master?
clenchedfist00: cajun fried rice: brown basmati cooked in beef broth, spices and chipotle adobo marinade, andouille sausage, a touch of sweet bourbon mustard, a bit more marinade, egg, and the obligatory red and green habanero hot sauces
why won't it let me upload the pic
clenchedfist00: i can no longer "like" comments or replies, so please do not be disheartened by the lack thereof; i am viewing wire on a phone now and it cannot display the thumbs up icon
View all 48 posts
clenchedfist00: it's too bad it was restricted, the fillmore version is decent but garcia and merl saunders put out an album together and they cover hi heel sneakers, it's very raw and in keeping with the very intoxicated thread of this post
Curious, vicariously, if you've read through this --
Review - A World Without Values
Essays on John Mackie's Moral Error Theory
by Richard Joyce and Simon Kirchin (Editors)
Review by James Taggart, Ph.D.
Jan 17th 2012 (Volume 16, Issue 3)
I stumbled upon it searching and researching online (obviously). I didn't read the book (yet, maybe), but I read the review; pretty kewl. Figured if you haven't you may be interested.
View all 4 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: cool mint, ( no pun intended ) and it goes to what i have always believed in so far as morality being a highly individualistic sliding scale that can be manipulated, even if only slightly where necessity mandates it. a young farm boy, never hurt a flea in his life, the idea repulsive. kind hearted and embracing of the lords tenants as they are laid down in the scripture, thou shall not kill writ large in his psyche, finding himself in the sprawling killing fields of the somme facing off with people he knows nothing about, manning a machine gun, killing people close enough that he can see the blood spray in the air as his bullets find their marks. he is the moral person he was raised to be but all of that in this time and place are suspended in the interests of a greater purpose that has been placed upon him, albeit with the lords sanction ( god is on everyone,s side paradoxically). and though his actions will haunt him till his dying days, he will up hold his virtue and morality knowing he did the right thing. this is his individual stand and it reflects the world in which he was raised. who we are as individuals owes much to the world in which we were raised. the truly broken among us not withstanding.
theKnaveofNevermore: weird, as i wrote that and my head was firmly in the grips of the hell that was the first world war, i have a pair of yahoos on the court yard down in front of the building tearing up pavement with a set of pneumatic jack hammers. and damn if it doesn't sound like machine guns.
clenchedfist00 to theKnaveofNevermore: knave man I'm sorry I haven't been on lately, my job and the crazy hours are kicking my ass and I am just exhausted when I get off ... hopefully I can catch up on your posts and stuff over the next couple days, which I have off, thank god, universe, circumstance, etc.
I'm very high struggling to form thoughts and sentences
theKnaveofNevermore: its okay man, i thought this was the case, 12 hour days are a bear, after you eat and catch some zzz there is no time for anything else. totally understood man. anyway how is it working out, still smooth sailing i hope. exhausting for sure i bet, being on your feet for 12 is more tiring than people suspect. right now i,m on vacation. but i,m feeling guilty about it so i,m not really enjoying it, life blows, generally. but just do what you got to do man, it,s cool.
theKnaveofNevermore: i was reading an interesting article, in which the author was reviewing a study which has demonstrated that ( in this case american) society is essentially divided into four primary subgroups, the individualists, the hierarchists , the egalitarians and finally the communitarians and from what i have read it was very easy to see how battle lines could be drawn between these four groups, and how exactly they would be divided down political lines. the individualists ( who closely resemble libertarians who them selves are more right leaning than any of them are willing to admit, i once got into an argument on fb with a dude who called himself a libertarian but was in full support of all things trump and uber rightwing, i told him he could call himself what he liked but he was still just a neocon, embracing the far right theology, rather like somebody from the klan telling you ' you,re the racist not me' and lord knows i,ve heard that before), who fall in support of the gun waving right, the homesteaders and wearers of crisp new stetson hats (even if they have never see a horse up close, frankly if you want to wear a cowboy hat, be able to tell people you have sat on a horse at least once in your life, pet peeve. ), they ( despite their religious leanings and fearful love of jesus christ are more darwinist in their hearts were other people are concerned. the individualist believes that people should stand on their own two feet, and if you can't, make way for someone who can, these are people who would support trumps idea to gut the healthcare plan, life isn't a right afterall, and poor sick people are dead sick people rather quickly in their perfect world, darwinism in action. the hierarchists however, although also being in full support of the right, don't seek the freedom of self determination of their more individualistic brothers, but instead understand there is a pecking order and they know their place in it. the king is king, and the heirarchists exists to serve the master of the land. with the hopes of moving up the chain with displays of loyalty and surrender to the authority of the crown. and with money the dream of one day entering the lofty peerage of the prosperous. coin is the coin of the heirarchists realm. and they absolutely fall in line with the more right wing thinkers in their philosophy of money equaling both power and prestige and ultimately the end game. these two groups embody the concept of 'me' in that their wants desires and most importantly their general concerns are focused inward and they are not about the communities in which they live, they do not think about their communities until such time as they become a general threat to their way of life ( you can see the perceived threat levels rising in the southern portion of the states as people are more and more demanding the right to open carry side arms, this is fear screaming out loud) , the NRA have told them they are in danger and provide the cure for their woes in the form of semi automatic assault rifles. all of this represents the grass roots support for the GOP ( greedy old patricians i call em ) and they support with out question as we all have been seeing in our horror as trump steadily gets worse and worse everyday, i seriously believe he isn't even going to wait to be impeached, he is just going to strike his tent and declare " sorry folks this is not fun anymore, good luck" and waddle away to a golf course, in saudi arabia. in his world the rich don't work, so this must all be a terrible imposition to him, now on the far f left we have the egalitarians and the communitarians , who really only differ slightly in their politics, both agree in equality and the dutiful righteousness of its general application across the board, though if seems to me that in the idealism of communitarianism the onus of support for the under privileged lies in the hands of the government, which the communitarians would happily throw their taxes at in support of, where as the egalitarians are of the mind set that there needn't be an underprivileged class if the rich would loosen the purse strings and create a better standard of living for those trying not to fall between the crack. a raise in minimum wage for instance ( which the right is fighting tooth and nail, what 4 bucks an hour not enough, stop being so lazy and get a third job, sell an organ, or rent one out perhaps, ) yep the rightwing for all their religious bellicose love cheap and desperate sex workers. but i digress. the egalitarians simply want a level playing field were general fairness is the stone that keeps the slate on level and that we many look to one another as being not adversaries as the "i got mine" rightwing have the tendency to do but as being members of the same team, the success of one being the success of the entire village, or has JFK said, a rising tide lifts all boats. we succeed together or we tear the country apart. anyway, i thought the article was fascinating. and it speaks wildly to the position we are currently in with right and left being as far from center as either one of them have ever been. in recent times.
theKnaveofNevermore: i have long suspected that political trends not only in america but across the world were being driven, or at least in exploitation of, some form of neurosis either systemic to brain function or outwardly impairing brain function. in short people are simply stupider than they used to be, the cause is yet to be determined, but i would suggest the dumbing down of the educational curriculum would be a good point to start in that investigation. trump is a good example where in he recently was quoted asking very obvious questions about the civil war, about which he clearly knew nothing about. is trump a simpleton, or were these important historical facts simply not availed upon him for what ever reason. he was clearly very upset about the germans having attacked pearl harbour in world war one. i kid, but only slightly. the youth of america have had the education system turn its back on them and have effectively left them twisting in the wind in their own ignorance for almost 40 years now, the extreme left wing which has held the reins of education determining that solid self determinate members of society are best created by leaving children to their own devices to learn from themselves and to learn from their peers with out the guidance of adult educational professionals. ( has no one read lord of the flies) so the young have learned, from interacting with one another in the online realm, and see a world tailored to their wants and needs that bears no resemblance to reality, in fact reality is a construct they have zero faith in as a result, thus their disdain and contempt for the political process which they see as being nothing more than a platform for corruption. that they can do nothing about and do not really believe will have any baring on their lives anyway. i read how in the classroom cultural appropriation is the new literary demon. that brilliant classic must now be abandoned as a result of 'ethnic theft'. for instance how dare a white man write about the human struggles of a people of racial background that is not his own, the merchant of venice would fall sharply into that catch all, what does shakespear know of the jewish antagonist shylock. a cultural theft blatantly. one of many works of the bard the left would happily see pulled out of the curriculum on the basis of its insensitivity. males would be forbidden to create female characters on account of their gender ignorance and inability to be in touch with the mindset of female kind. gender misappropriation. what is left for the kids in the future, but to create a narrative of their own, which speaks only to them and effectively locks what ever we would call reality out.
View all 9 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: yeah man , they do not happen very often but i do love those moments, when everything comes together and god seems to be in its place and all is perfect within the universe, those seminal moments when it seems the intangible is within ones grasp and there is a kind of perfect sensibility unfolding, but like wisps of smoke in the breeze it is always a fleeting thing. in 1985 i had one that has hung with me to this day, a friend had convinced me to go with him into the city and hit a dance club, a thing i usually shun, the light and space of such things usually unnerve me terribly. but on this occasion i relented and i outfitted myself in my best wears, the floor length outback coat, the knee high equestrian boots, the weather was perfection, a splendid late september evening, the nights cooling down but still well within the zone of comfort. my friend was equally attired , but he wore his coat differently, to any strange eye however we still seemed the pair and at that age good friends did seem to try to at least look like they were on the same team. or we just had remarkably similar fashion sense. we headed down to the old big bop, on the bleak and goth ravaged stretch of queen street that had long been refuge to those members of the counterculture who had officially fallen off the grid and now existed in the strange world of the in betweens. in the seventies it had been the drop out center of the universe for the followers of leary,s strange and demented dream of tuning in and dropping out, and they went all the way. queen street was our version of haight ashbury up here in quaint canada, still a decade removed from the cultural vanguard what was the shiny beacon south of the border. at that time the neighbourhood was a ghostly and melancholic yellowed image of the season of love that had preceded it, holding its last clinging hostages to an age having already by that time faded into memory. head shops and candle stores, the smell of incense and pot fighting for supremacy in the open air. but all of this was dead and gone by the time the the death embracing punks, the new salient of the youth movement, with its own crew of broken die hard,s that the suburban kids tried so desperately to emulate, and while they could don the leather and the black lipstick and pierce their clothing with safety pins they lacked the needle crack marks that was the clear line in the sand separating them for the real punks that lived in the doorways of the long closed candle shops on the queen street west strip. it was in this dark and dingy place that i found myself in 85, barely legal, and on my way to the favourite haunt of vampires and otherwise near death the city had to offer, the big bop. a hundred years before it has been a residential lodging, a multi story housing complex on much the same level and concept of the now famous new york brownstones. in its life it had been converted to suit many purposes, and had become thoroughly commercialized. by the late seventies it was a run down piece of junk but a creative bar owner saw its potential and was aware of the trends in that world and took possession of the property, the first thing he did was paint it black, just like the song told him to. all of it, it was already well beaten to hell and like a horse well rode and put away wet had looked much better one upon a time by the time i saw it. but no matter how you cut it the place screamed the depravity of goth, though i,m not even sure we had that name for it then, even if we did embrace the philosophy of it utterly. the place as is always the case with such venues was nothing more than a huge speaker lit up like a christmas tree which served drinks, and the chest pounding vibe was in that place as potent as could be found. the lights swirled, the beer was hitting, the pot i had smoked before we went in was doing its blessed thing, and the groove of the joint was fastly approaching climatic splendor, the room moved, the crowds, undulating in sublime syncopation, then they played this, and the falls fell, i was lost in it.
theKnaveofNevermore: yikes, anyway, that entire neighbourhood is completely gentrified now. realestate is far to valuable now to simply let it lie fallow for long. it,s all high end boutique shops and whole food outlets. this is louis vuitton,s turf now.
View all 10 posts
theKnaveofNevermore in reply to clenchedfist00: oh yes, we can all appreciate a well turned leg, no question. oh damn i just had the vision of the stocking leg table lamp in the movie a christmas story. ralphie,s old man was a cut up.
View all 4 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: everyone in venice walk, what in scuba gear. kidding aside this is spot on, cars are an albatros around our neck, but we would not willingly part with it. i love driving, and i enjoy the privacy. but in the end they are detrimental over all and we have the technologies for alternatives. if only the government was not utterly owned by big oil. now even more so, i recently read trump has removed limitations on gas consumption for personal use vehicles. burn as much gas as you wish, it,s good for you. a tremendous step backwards. but not to politicize too much, it seems to be the general motivation and end game for the far right, to turn the clock back. say a hundred years, and that would but it perfectly in line with 1917 and the monarchies fall from grace. ww1 saw the end of dynastic rule but now title has supplanted heraldry in this new peerage. money is right of passage and the divine right to wield the power that comes with it. a new oligarchy. anyway, if we must have cars we must push them in an entirely different direction. bikes, the road ways are already in place, in all city centers, turn it over to bike only, imagine how cool it would be, just to take the bike out onto the road with no fear of ending up a smear on the pavement. of course a lot of pedestrians will get taken out, but those guys were always fair game.
theKnaveofNevermore: lol, this reminds me of a skit on some show i watched years ago, the whole mobile phone thing was still knew so having one had significant prestige, so this guy walks in with what looked like a ww2 field phone that in real like was as big as a bread box, by the dubious russian manufacturer imanokov. lol
clenchedfist00: 12 hour shift ... evening shift dishwashers don't do a damn thing ... exhausted and sore
View all 10 posts
theKnaveofNevermore in reply to Punchy: lol, punch, i cling to what ever flotsam i can, and think it a yacht, call it a coping mechanism if you like, i know nothing of your life so what gets you out of bed in the morning is unknown to me but it clearly works for you. and isn't that its entire point.