“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
Alas! my foul Flash Player again has failed.This is at least the fifth such time this year.'Twould do no good, or else I would have wailedAnd railed against the Powers we must fear."And who are 'they?'" you ask. I cannot say ––Nameless, faceless, hidden as they be.In plush palatial suites on us they preyCausing men to risk their sanityDealing with accurs'd upgrades eternal Might a peptic ulcer cause to dwellIn the stress'd digestive tract infernalMaking rounds quotidian a hell.The blessings of modernity are mixedHad I been Czar, I would have had them nixed!~ FreeThinke
I pray you might consider posting small does of PITHY provocative prose, instead of endless videos and daunting, thorny "tomelets" overloaded with dense, turgid, too-highly-nuanced, overly-detailed academic prose.Too much cryptic, esoteric writing causes average readers like me to feel they are being deliberately excluded from engaging in meaningful dialogue. When virtually every sentence is loaded with linguistic-intellectual hurdles, after a while the urge even to TRY to jump disappears, and so potential participants wander off disconsolately toward the South Pasture staring at the distant, unreachable mountains with dull, unseeing eyes.
I understand your Flash Player dilemna, FT, but this is the place that I like to stash videos that I've stumbled across and may wish to return to. And I also don't really post anything for others, so much as stuff that interests me. Although comments are "nice" and "welcome", they're certainly not necessary. Sorry if its' all off-putting. It's not intended to be so. I use blogs as a resource for populating my memory hole. I'd understand perfectly if you never came back here.
I see, but why would I "never" come back? This has been one of very few places in the blogosphere where I have at times felt welcomed and appreciated. I hope I have not been mistaken in that regard?INTERESTING! It never occurred to me that anyone would want to use a BLOG as a mere repository for storing data. I've been under the mistaken impression, I guess, that this venue was meant to be used as a sort of PULPIT from which to PREACH, TEACH, ENGAGE, ENTERTAIN, and possibly PERSUADE others with stimulating thoughts, worthwhile information, unique forms of poetic expression, and passionate opinion in the hope of opening a series of meaningful conversations where we might learn from one anoither.More and more I realize from what I continually see elsewhere that that has become more and more of a hopeless quest.Perhaps we'd all do better to go back to writing private diaries? ;-)You are the third person I know who has recently told me he writes only for himself. The two others have recently closed their blogs to public view, and will no longer accept comments.Has ISOLATION become the desired goal in this increasingly nettlesome, fractious world where night and day we are bombarded with electronically generated batshit?I see more and more a marked tendency to discard old forms of camaraderie and communication in favor of withdrawing into ever-diminishing little worlds of our own.Are we "progressing" to the point where we no longer want or need each other? Is this the inference we are to draw from the sudden development of stronger, more adept, ever more sophisticated robots and artificial intelligence?Are we in effect phasing our benighted species out of existence without even realizing it?Sure looks that way.
We have had a bit of fun, on occassion, haven't we, FT? No, you haven't been mistaken in my appreciation of your company and friendship.Sad but true, we are degenerating into isolation though. What was once "mainstream" (our way of thinking) has become "alienating" to the rest of society. And they are more than happy to see us fade away.
I have long taken comfort in these words from St. Teresa of Avila –– as translated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:Let northing disturb theeNothing affright theeAll things are passingPatient enduranceAttaineth to all thingsIn whom God pleasethNothing is lackingAlone God sufficeth.~ Lines written in her breviaryIf by any chance faith in God is merely an illusion, as your friend Freud asserted, I don't want to know about it. This is why I resist and reject all forms of intellectual endeavor that work either to thwart the Will of God or worse deny His existence altogether. As poet Thomas Gray said in his Elegy in a Country Churchyard, "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."I hasten to add I speak only for myself, but always in hope for others.Meanwhile, as long as we're consigned to live here on this darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night, ;-) I continue to expect we may yet have more fun in the future. Stay well ...
I suspect we might. Give 'em Hell, Harry! ;)
I believe, a great successor to Harry Truman, bound to carry on Harry's plain-spoken tradition, has already planted himself firmly in the national consciousness.His name is DONALD J.TRUMP.Am I not correct?
He is certainly plain spoken. It remains to be seen if he can ever become plainly "understood" (w/o his words being followed by 500 false accusations of 'racism').
"The People" seem to have gotten wise to the haughty, presumptuous, quasi-Authoritarian controls foisted in them by self-styled Intellectual Elites from the [Poison] Ivy League, and the moguls who own and operate the enemedia.Donald Trump, a VERY smart man, has seen this for himself, and has had the wit to exploit it to the fullest. One hopes he will continue doing this for the sake of the country, and not turn out to be just another greedy, self-aggrandizing demagogue.Only time will tell, but I'd much prefer to place my money on an unknown who may do us good, than to waste it on forces we know POSITIVELY will do us incalculable harm given the chance.As for "RACISM," I can see only ONE way to neutralize the ubiquitous charges of "racism" bandied about –– EMBRACE RACISM wholeheartedly and unapologetically. In truth EVERYBODY is a "racist" at heart by today's standards. The blacks are. They Jews are. The Japs are. And so is every white man, woman and child who does not delude himself with vain fantasies of being Holier Than Thou.Face it. "Racism" is as American as Motherhood, and Apple Pie –– and as much a part of the Human Condition as sexual desire.
So long as 'public' rights and privileges can be gained from racial affiliation, the practice will continue. When the law recognizes no such distinctions as "legitimate", then, perhaps, the public practice of 'racism' will end.
Hope springs eternal. And here I thought it was YOU who was the cynic. };^)>
I prefer "kynic" since the power to effect systemic change is not mine.Zizek presents kynicism in opposition to cynicism, described as “the popular, plebeian rejection of the official culture by means of irony and sarcasm.” Kynicism is essentially the opposite of cynicism as it confronts those falsehoods of ideology that are masked by cynicism.
Interesting, but unfathomable, since you (or Zizek) appear to be redefining terms to fit a personal paradigm.Cynicism –– to me –– has always meant looking at life with a "weather eye." Pessimism, suspicion, distrust, categorical rejection of anything that appears affable, refined, generous, uplifting, hopeful and kind.Cynicism is not the same as skepticism, however, though many imagine them to be synonymous. Cynicism is dour, bitter, negative and destructive since it tends to deny the very existence of Virtue.Skepticism on the other hand implies a healthy curiosity about the true nature of things. It wants to make sure the glittering item that beckons from afar truly is made of gold and not the product of seductive, illusory artifice.Where the CYNIC fully EXPECTS the glittering item to be valueless, the SKEPTIC still hope his suspicions might be proven wrong.The CYNIC tends to be an arrogant., dismissive know-it -all.The SKEPTIC on the other hand is apt to be humble in his earnest search for truth.
Zizek used the term with reference to the prevaling powers behind ideologies. I makes much more sense that a single, ususally ideologically-contextual usage.
Post a Comment