I thought this sounded interesting, I do not remember how I got there, but it was a good read and I am trying to connect my blog to his.
I thought this sounded interesting, I do not remember how I got there, but it was a good read and I am trying to connect my blog to his.
Having Great Thoughts
Certainly. We do have a lot of thoughts, going on all the time. Thought is going on but what you should understand is that these thoughts are not always translated into poetry, a poetry we could also call “the word.” Some claim to have no problem in the interstitial space between thoughts and their resultant outcome in words. No, I do not have that technique. How would I translate all my fuzzy and “inchoate” (is that the word?) thoughts into grammatical speech? There may be some kind of a linguistic method, but I am not in any case one of the verbal elite. So fuck it. But, yes, I could try. Perchance I shall write a few things down, here. (Unless I make myself sick first.) And I can see where it leads. If I try really hard to create some really good exposition of some ideas maybe I will really discover a universe of thought, but Lord, it is hard. A simple thought requires a long sentence, and yet, and yet, and yet [insert violins] it becomes quite an arduous task to create these literary tomes, although it comes easily to elites, I guess so.
I will change something, though, that I say above. I said: “…all the time.” Maybe not all the time. The thoughts are there sometimes. Yes, they are there, but it is not the case that they are always there. They are not actually there all the time. When they do come, it seems awful tough for me to get it into some nice, or perhaps frighteningly brilliant, philosophical paper. For your information a very simple thought, one that takes a second or two to think, may well take five minutes, to write it. Or much more. Sometimes, I may feel that there is a flood of thoughts, but, sometimes, I am blank. I am blank, but: I am never named “Frank.”
But philosophers. As for philosophers, in particular, I have a problem with them. They want to write out the thoughts even before they have them. Now how can that be? They want to explain being even before the facts are out. The factuals of being have not yet even taken wing (ah yes: inchoate). But already these philosophers are laying out their words and phrases. The whole nine yards, and I am not one of those persons.
No, I am not! For example, let us suppose that I see a croissant. I see a croissant. I do not ask it what it is thinking, I eat it first. And I feel the same way about baguettes, bagels and pancakes. Since I am a hungry man, I reach for it. In order to eat it.
I do not wake up in the morning with any motivation whatsoever to ask being how it feels. I am a hungry. Most of us are. Everything seems difficult to express. Maybe it is that these feelings are always in movement and never slow down, thus they can never be captured.
By contrast with the writers, observe: there are the primitive savages. The former are the ones who try to put everything down on paper, whereas the philosophy of the primitive savage is quite undeveloped in the sense of the articulate Western writer. They (meaning the Norsemen, I believe) believe in all their myths and stories handed down over generations. Now along comes the Western philosopher. This person is going to advance her own scholarly work by studying the undeveloped savage. This is what she does with her major academic credentials? -studies primitives? She will study these primitives’ sacred myths and stories but how would it work? How would that work logically? In what way, which is to say “how,” would myths and stories that are primitive enhance the career of a Western sophisticated one? An academic? Notice that the subject matter once again is error: this time it is the primitive peoples’ errors. It is their myths and stories: their “myths,” “stories.” Or does the Western philosopher believe them? I hardly think they do.
The Western intellectuals believe themselves.
Many traditional peoples have now abandoned their myths and stories, yet for their part, the part of the Western thinkers, they build another layer. This should stop. It has got to end.
Source: “Horrors” (at the store)
I had an interesting conversation with a woman who was an Arab from Morrocco. Within the conversation, she told me there was no ‘Arsb Spring’ thing there. I had asked how are things in Morrocco, and did they have the “Arab Spring.” She said they did not and also there is a king. Oh, a king system! Things in Morrocco things are perhaps not bad? There. It’s fine. They have their king, so—-anyways, it is so interesting to me to hear another point of view. I think so. This is a really different point of view, now. Ever combative, ever challenging, at this I pointed out: “Not all kings are good kings;” So sayz I. “Look at Trump,” I said in illustration. This guy. He wants to be a king. And the cafe worker nodded emphatically at this. So. Now she likes him! She likes the Trump King! I am getting nowhere with all this. Oh, boy. So Trump is a GOOD king, just like the king of Morocco, one supposed. But, getting back to my own country, the American case, why is this dork of person a good individual “king”? Because “he is not doing anything,” she said. He is not able to do anything. So, that is because we, the People, blocked his immigration plan. We stopped him! People stopped the immigration block, I said. Yes, it is because you know, we stopped his immigration block he tried to set up, we stopped him! Continuing to wipe tables, she went away. And as she did, she said: “thank you.”
OK, so the bottom line is that Trump is good, as king. Good. Why? He is not doing anything. That is why. And then she walked away, still a Royalist. I met a Royalist today.
The question that comprises the title of this WP piece/post/essay, or whatever it will be (always spontaneous), is a question about Trump as an attack of the free market. And, almost needless to say, the question is not well-attended to, either in words composed by our esteemed financial journalists, nor in the hands of the press. Nor is the question addressed by the university “economics” (as a subject).
When you put a wall up or want to put a wall up — this proposal, which is a blocking project as to commerce or traffic, one that involves Mexico, since that is where the border is — you are LIMITING yourself. Sometimes that’s OK; there is nothing the matter with it. Nobody is emotionally or Constitutionally obligated to embrace the world. I hear tell that Mr. Trump hates to see anybody else from profiting off “his” brand. He goes ballistic if any one tries to find a way into profits that Trump believes are meant for himself. Trump became, at long last (it took awhile) a multi-billion dollar guy, retaining this kind of attitude: a fixture of his personality. So, there are many persons — many — within the overall market framework who jealously guard their territory. They want a wall. That is their right and it exists as an aspect of the overall free market system.
This is not the question here of a small person’s “own” opinion about trade. We are asking the free-market (actually, I tried to type “about” the free market but the wrong sounds right sometimes, I have to say), but that means the many. What we are not asking about are the individuals who are within a market. In other words, if we ask about the “market” we are asking about persons. A market is not just ONE person.
Strange that this should be controversial. We use the word market all the time, but have no idea what we are talking about. This is the way it is, so we have to deal with this world. So. It would be a major accomplishment to instigate a broader understanding of the “free market” from within the free market. Maybe there could be a more free ranging conversation. How do you all feel about such a project? I certainly hope that such an investigation wouldn’t “infringe” on anybody’s territory. I hope no one would be upset….
(As to the title question. “Is Tr an Attack on the FM”? It seems possible he holds these views. But, if that is the case, it will not contribute to greater profits, in the U. S. And why the hell should it? Everything domestic just gets smaller this way. Perhaps by some miracle the U. S. should come out of this a “greater” country? It will also be a smaller one. Such a reduction has, of course, has long been advocated – but by opponents of “US imperialism,” the left.)
1 2 5 9 8
this is a fairly simple series of words that I feel anyone should be able to understand. (These are words written as numbers, so it says 1 and not one.)
Now I understand
There is one set of rules for fantasy and another set of rules for reality. T. V. is fantasy.
“Dramatically increase productivity” (p. 181 “How – Internet Works,” QUe books)
Every system needs an overhaul once in a blue moon.
Reform? Today we /they/ say capitalism is the same always and forever. Thus, no need for reform.
Is it at all disturbing that common sense is taking a holiday in America? But, not to worry — because the magical market(s) will self-regulate.
You need a social basis. In order to do anything. You stand on that basis when you fix the problem. If you do not have a real society, then you will not be able to deal with a problem. There needs to be a society there. That is basic. For example, persons today may want to deal with some kind of a Trump problem, the obvious Trump problem where something is wrong and you have a president who is not acting properly. For certain problems you need the required skills. So, there is the idea that, to respond, one must have the capacity. But there needs to be a cultural basis to this. This idea is therefore about that basis. You would need to respond as a nation, and you cannot do so with no “cultural basis.” You cannot just respond to these things, when there is not the basis. The basis is cultural. You would respond as a nation.
So I can see that there are very smart people lining up against Trump. That is fine. But then I turn to wondering about the kind of response we are capable of as a nation, a community. Something like that. For activism to work there has to be “cultural basis.” It cannot work any other way. If there is someone who wants to respond to a thing like growing threats in government, how would they do it?
How do they coordinate their activities?
Are they all just acting individually? How do you shout down or gain the advantage over dozens of “alt-right” creeps? It does not just happen by magic. You need the cultural basis in all such matters.
I wonder why this is poorly understood. Maybe, in earlier times, the response would be that of a king, and a king has his own basis of power, without it being exactly cultural, in this sense.
For our society, if you have persons who are totally nuts and they are operating in the White House (I won’t try to think about the Congress or the Court), there has to be some other kind of response. At the same time, I see less and less of a unified culture. With less of the needed foundation or basis, then, to get something done, you need to get your culture back. How do you put that back into place? This is a job for presidents or politicians—-who should understand this is the job they must do. We just get campaign slogans.
Culture, or cultural leaders?
Although the United States seems to have been a pretty good country – not great but pretty good – something seems to have gone wrong – and now we have an asshole president.
* * + – – – #
I think one of the lessons learned is that, sometimes, multi-millionaires or billionaires can have very few brains. I mean this man has basically the brains of an eight-grader.
___ ___ # * * = – –
There is a calligraphy exhibit, at the very swank Newberry Library. One example of calligraphy renders in big, carefully-made letters one of D. T’s tweets, on fine paper. This is carefully inked out. Given this kind of treatment, there is what seems to me a kind of “proof” that as for what he says (or what he tweets) it just won’t stand up.
“Try it like that.” What does “try” mean? Does “try” mean to receive passively, as in “try on”? That would be to determine whether you might like something. That is one meaning of “try something.” It is passive. Or, another meaning: to go out and “try” meaning to make an action. This is when you physically make an effort? I can imagine a spectrum, between physical and mentally “trying.” Try mentally (try my patience), try sensually (tried being a vamp), try physically (tried to get a job). Many ways to try? A person can “try” to accept a bad marriage – that is rather passive, I would think. Or, try to climb a tall mountain. Very active. I think that would be active.
It seems like this word is very “flexi,” as it has many options as to meaning. You could try living in the Berkshires. Sometimes, it means “accept,” sometimes it means a physical effort. But, to “try” does not always mean to make a physical effort. This is how it seems.
When we say to try something, this also may refer to how one receives.
How do you like the world? -it means: “how do you receive it?”
Try living in capitalism.
Do you like it?
If a persons says she does like it, here is what it means: does not mean anything beyond that she not only did not make any effort to be a capitalist (capitalism is more of a thing that happens to you) but also, she did not even try to understand what the situation is that this word refers to. Getting back to the word, though, the meaning of the word “try” seems to be something worth going into, worth a little analysis (which, I know, can be trying).