Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-27-2016, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What you need is the best way of understanding the kind of subject matter you want to know. There are four basic ways of knowing: art, mystical religion, philosophy and science, and possibly gradations in between. Politics is not a mode of knowing, because it's a mode of action, acting on your knowledge, or a kind of subject matter; not a method of knowing it. Knowing politics would be political science, or political philosophy. And it's an art too, of course. Trump is a political artist, or more exactly, an entertainer. To say politics or law is a way of knowing, is like saying the atomic structure is a way of knowing. How you know it, the way you study and observe it, affects the subject matter and your view of it, but knowledge and subject matter is not identical.

I'll acknowledge art as a possible way of understanding the world and achieving fulfillment.  I'll note that in the past you have objected that mysticism and religion are distinct enough to deserve to be counted as different things.  I'm glad you have come over to my way of thinking.    

I'll deny that politics isn't a framework for understanding the world (world view) as well as providing goals for how one should improve one's culture and one's role within it (values).  We spend an awful lot of time, you, me and others on this forum, comparing, contrasting and insulting various political world views and values.  Trying to further comprehend and resolve such things won't be helped if you can't step out of your personal world view far enough to see what is going on in front of  your face.  Your refusal to see outside your personal framework isn't optimal.

People have strong political beliefs and values.  Your inability to see and acknowledge this doesn't change it.

I quite agree Trump has a talent as an entertainer.  While I see political systems such as red, blue, green or libertarian as structures for understanding and manipulating the world, I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around 'reality TV host' as being quite the same thing.  Well, yes, he can manipulate audiences using the talents he picked up running his show.  I am truly hoping that there is more to him than that particular approach to manipulating people.  Well, perhaps I am hoping more that he's going to lose, and thus it will not matter.  Alas, if there is something behind the showman's facade, I'm not sure what it is.

(08-27-2016, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:Recently on this thread I've been engaging Classic as the red champion, Eric as the blue, with you championing science.  If all three of you aren't happy with me, perhaps I'm doing something right?    I was hoping, though, that science's champion could be a little more open to new paradigms.  According to my notes, it's supposed to be that way.  When we move towards the subject of guys dancing in white dresses though, your usual scientific objectivity and analysis fades as you operate in the realms of culture and politics.  

That's true. But are you doing something right? You always think so, as fully as those you "engage" might. And you can't see that fact very well. So operating within that realm of self-delusion, you have your limits.

Quote:This illustrates what I mean when I say most individuals don't operate in one realm of knowledge.  Most everyone has to shift between various ways of looking at things.  Stock market cycles and guys dancing in white dresses belong in different mental realms.  Most everyone will have to shift between such realms in the course of living their lives, and not be aware that they are doing it.  Different folks will spend different amounts of time in different realms, be most at home in different places, and shift under different circumstances.  There has to be a paradigm in that somewhere.  If one wants to make sense of the convoluted conversations we have around here, it is interesting to keep track of who is working in what realm and maybe even try to follow.

I agree. Maybe "try to follow;" do you? Not often where I lead, at least.

Acknowledged.  I may be aware of how world views and values can both focus and contain an individual's thinking, but don't claim total immunity to the effects.  Scientific values are better than most at reminding practitioners that new data requires new thinking, that no paradigm should be considered sacrosanct, that anything one believes should be subject to reevaluation.  Some variations of mysticism echo a similar principle, which is why the masters pour too much tea in the student's cup.  One must empty out old beliefs to make learn for new learning.  We could both gain by pushing these aspects of our varied traditions.

I acknowledge that you have found a path that brings you a knowledge of how the world works and a guidance on how you should act that gives you a deep satisfaction.  I have walked enough steps of that path to understand its basic nature, and to know it is not for me.  I doubt any man could or should try to walk every path he encounters to the same degree as someone who has committed a lifetime to one path alone.  My own path suggests trying to acknowledge, respect and understand many diverse paths, but I'm not going to be able to out quote the bible with JPT, discuss in detail the many and varied economic cycles with Mikebert, or critique one of your astrological charts.

But as you might push meditation and astrology, I'll be trying to push walking at least a kilometer in the other guy's shoes.  It's what I do.