Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Struggle within Self Becomes Strugge of Nation

The link post titled nameabove in title above will have to be corrected, and can be done in other places, but for now it has to remain as it is here.

Those CV people are Radicals for change, eh?:) See here, here, here?

"If you are not with us you are against us". Imagine such sentiments even within your own country? Could such a country become divisive within itself, that there is the emergence of a "left" and "right." and that you have just now assume the dubious "left." :)

I'm thinking of Sean's entry on perspective. The sound of "one hand clapping." Sort of the recognition, that if you change the "idealization to nonviolence," it acted as a force with which anger and aggressive attitudes of the "right" to control behavior of the left, had nothing against with which it could push?

Reserve one's judgement on the speech? :( What am I asking? Would automatically send up the hackles Qui! NOn!

Seeing the same cartoonist construct three different pieces on the same topic, from three standpoints, is really an edifying experience. Not only for my meager acuity in the visual arts, but to understand message and framing. I’ll share these three cartoons with you, as well as the rough draft.

There would be no sound. There would be no clapping. Just the recognition that "non violent" action would call sane citizens of the state, to recognzie diversity in opinion, and not polarize around such distinctions.

I know it's hard walking the (A)middleway. Sometimes this "heartway for expression" has to have applications moved to the head for correct thinking, least we are circumvented to the childish antics of emotive reactions in the probable future.

The "child" is the future, and to continunally challenge our emotive constructs( these things well imprinted in our own realities) that we say we cannot change of what has already happened? We can certainly change, how we will react in the future by challening these perspectives. A Clear mind and consise thinking, to combat what is embedded, will have fortunate consequences, although, the struggle to implement such a strategy, must unfold in order to change how we see into that future.

I am "constantly fighting"( my own battle with self) to bring sane recognition out of the historical background and "relative phrases" to situations that might become the struggle of nations, if one had thought to extend it's appliciability to such lengths? It's not that you fight your parents, and all that has been encoded in you, or that you change the reactionary way( this is part of our psychological makeup) in which you will emotively react(a "positive anger" for change is possible), but that there is a third choice, and one in which a better logic would materialize? Held to political distinctions that we had all might revert too.

That the emotive forced garnered a better visulaization then, not to be lead, by illusions of the religious right or to default on the irreligiousness of the left(?).

Would I have just been as guilty here in that last statement?

Now we've arrived at the end of the century, where crime, moral chaos, and politics driven by the often hollow sophistications of sociology and psychology all alert us to the breakdown of too many previous assumptions, particularly the coming apart of what might be called our ethical agreements with one another. Late capitalism, in apparent triumph, seems to encourage self-interest over any lingering sense of a commonwealth.

Who then are the better nation builders? That to continue to perfect this war that rages within ourselves would take this to the political stage and make the war happen on a much wider and divisive scale?

So who then who would the better nation builders be? Those that seek the third choice and the choice that recognizes change is very fast and becoming. That there is no time standing, always new.

As the Discussion continues

The point is that if any of you, "censored" like Peter likes too, then I would have thought the way they censored your comments Mark and Joanne, would have been felt an affrontation about getting to the heart of issues, "equally frustating" in other venues.

I recognize your efforts as well of doing "something" amidst such censorhips. Getting to the heart of issues against "flagrant attitudes" politicized, requires that we think twice about what some who contribute, and what cannot work to the advanges of clear thinking?

A double edged sword? :)

Would one defend another of equal stature in regards to science who ID intelligent conversation as to express one's own agenda not deterrred as "negative way" to the right way? :)

I would rather focus on "nation building" as you have.

How has profound thinking been changed? I think the teachers are suppose to let us decide instead of them deciding for us. We are suppose to find our way as you lay correct infomration before us instead of packaging it, and saying ,this is wrong becuase I say so?

Maybe these are the failing attributes as parents, we assign to our children in those hidden meme's?:)

No comments:

Post a Comment