Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 23, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 1
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 23, 2006 at about 11pm CST
Segment 1
When I signed up for training at KEOS, I assumed that no one listened to the station. You see I was talking to one of the other volunteers here at the station and he said that he was frightened when he started at KEOS because he thought there all these people out there LISTENING, JUDGING and finding him wanting. That kind of disturbed him. Me, aht, my training is that of an engineer. I've worked at being a computer programmer. I do not believe something until there is some type of evidence.
Right now, I perceive that I am but a voice calling to you from the velvet black across the gulf of our mutual incomprehension. Do you exist? I do not believe so. Why you might ask, assuming that you are listening, that you indeed ARE out there listening... If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? This question was posed hundreds of years ago. Not until the last 100 years could we answer it effectively. If a tree falls, it creates a sound wave, it disturbs the air as it plummets to the ground. It disturbs the ground when it hits causing shock waves to emanate from it landing. It thus follows that a sound was produced... but was it heard. The physical world does not care whether it was heard, it just producing the sound and you have to decide to hear it... by being there.
I know, too weird, but I wanted to make the point that I am having problems with the nature reality. The French came up with a set of tools for dealing with symbols. The idea was that we have a name for a symbol. Then we have a definition as to what the symbol means. Then we have the physical object itself. Think really hard about this. Can a symbol be destroyed, if it does not have a physical basis in Reality?
Let me give you a couple of examples. The Statue of Liberty. The name evokes memories and feelings and SHOULD mean something to you.
Emma Lazarus wrote The New Colossus about the Statue of Liberty
It used to be that the symbol was felt deeply by all American. I do not think that is true anymore. Too many of us have decided that the Liberty is a given. We have decided that the promise of prosperity was a false promise. In short the Statue of Liberty is a false symbol, because it did not in fact keep its promise to all the immigrants.
I kind of find that fascinating because this divide between Americans right now. This unwillingness for the Left and the Right to share the same Reality. I know, I know, I know, you're saying, WHAT!? That's what you get when you start listening to the French. You start getting confused as to what the symbols mean and what the Reality is. Our symbols have become debased because we have become uncertain about the promise of America. Do we REALLY offer Liberty and a chance at prosperity OR is the liberty and the prosperity all a lie? The Right takes the view expressed by the foreigners, by the first generation immigrants which is that America is better than back home. Anything would be better than back home. The Left takes the position that America because it has not attained equality of outcome is lying to the immigrants. Some of the immigrants will fail and not achieve prosperity, this the Statue of Liberty is lying. There's a problem with the Left's analysis. It doesn't factor in the worth of liberty. The Left does not acknowledge that Liberty has any value, because they have never had to be without it. Liberty is by the definition of the Left, a right, thus is of no value. Since the immigrants are not assured of prosperity, they are being lied to.
Debasing a symbol like the Statue of Liberty is a bad idea, because it promotes hopelessness. If you are of the Left, then you are offended by what I have said, because of course you believe in liberty. The problem between us, then is that we do not agree on what liberty entails. As a member of the Right I cannot stand a really strong central government. History teaches me that a strong central government inevitably robs you of your liberty. To a member of the Left, a strong central government is the only bulwark against the tyrannies of the corporations, the rising tide of religious fundamentalism in this country and of course racism. Without a strong central government, people will inevitably be exploited by corporations, brainwashed by the crazies in pews and Blacks will be re-enslaved. Or that is how I see it. You may not, but there is a problem. Just because you as a member of the Left do not individually share all three of these views means nothing. The activist base of the Left does. I draw your attention to movon.org, the dailykos and the Democratic Underground. These three websites are the center of the Democratic Party and represent the true asperations of the Left. Regardless of what you think the activist Left thinks that all three of statements are true.
Let's talk a minute about the substance of the Statue of Liberty. I mean, the copper and steel and concrete. The Statue of Liberty appears to me to be the original, but how much of it is the original copper, steel and concrete. Got me. We did a refurbishment of the Statue of Liberty within the last 30 years, so the substance of symbol has been renewed. People donated to have it refurbished. Symbolically we said that the Statue of Liberty was worth something as it is. Are you getting this? We as a people decided that the Statue of Liberty as it is, was worth saving from the ravages of time. We as a people are in dispute as to whether the symbol called the Statue of Liberty still means the same thing.
Now, let's move on to the next example of symbols with substance. The White House. What does the White House represent? That symbol has become very muddy. When the White House was built, it was supposed to be a statement to the world that we had a palace like all the other real nations had. Yes, indeed, we were as good as any other nation even though we had this weird form of government that no one else had. When the British burned the White House in the War of 1812, we white washed the outside to cover up the smoke stains and went on. The White House was in essence a lie that became the truth. When the White House was built we were NOT a great nation. We did NOT have that much power. We said something to the world... that we aspired to be a great power. Now the symbol and the substance of the White House are the truth. We are a great power. We are the greatest nation in the history of the world. There has never been anything like the United States, since the last Ice Age. Egypt was just as powerful in the Middle East at one time. China and India were as powerful in their areas, but no nation in the history of the world has been powerful as we are in EVERY region of the world.
At this point in time, people look at the White House and see... the White House, a self-defining symbol. It doesn't really signify anything. You look at the Statue of Liberty, again, you have memories and feelings. When you view the White House, do you see the presumption associated with this people's palace. Yeh, I know, that doesn't sound right, because the Communists had People's everything... It used to be that the White House was the people's palace. In 1828, Andrew Jackson threw the wildest party in the history of the country to celebrate his becoming President.
From being a presumptions palace, the White House become a symbol of our power. Everyone around the world knows that the White House symbolizes real power. When the Statue of Liberty was built it was stating the truth and by my standards the promise of the Statue of Liberty has remained true. When the White House was built, it was a building to make us feel less inadequate when compared to all the older nations. Now, here's where it gets funny. All the palaces that existed in 1787 look quaint, if not silly next to the White House, because they are symbols of past glory. I don't think there is a single palace from that time anywhere on the planet where the palace signifies the power of the nation that hosts it.
What would happen were the White House destroyed? Well, it nearly was, United Airlines Flight 93 could have done some damage to the White House, but so what? The White House is a symbol with substance. If the White House staff and the President were saved, then the White House could easily be rebuilt. I mean, the replacement portion of the Pentagon was up and running in less than two years. So then could have the White House be up and running in less than two years. I personally feel that the White House could be totally destroyed, not a brick left on top of a brick, and it would mean nothing. The White House resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Whatever building is setting there is by definition, the White House. If the American people decide that the people's palace shall not be rebuilt, then it will not be rebuilt. If we move our seat of government to New York City, then the White House will be in New York City... maybe. The old White House would be in Washington, D.C. and have the same status as all those old palaces around the world.
On the other hand, I would be very upset were the Statue of Liber were destroyed. As far as I can see, the Statue of Liberty is an original. Of course, were it destroyed, we would rebuild it, because it is a symbol of our nation and some symbols have to have substance.
Oh, hell, I know this entire discourse is freaking you out, but I wanted to make the point that the symbols from our past have been degraded by re-interpretation and it irritates me. The Statue of Liberty does not shine as brightly because too many people think our country is not a land of opportunity. Too many people have decided that liberty does not need protecting because it's a given. Tell that to people in the Sudan. Liberty is not a given.
Why must the Left do that? Why must the Left redefine the symbols that hold up this country? Somehow or another the Left has lost its mind by my standards. Our country is strong because we gave up blood and bone as the main way to define our country. We substituted symbols. Instead of a country of total substance where citizens could trace their lineage back thousands of years and the soil contained many generations of their ancestors, we have become a country of symbols. By adopting our symbols, people from other countries become Americans.
Let me show you what I'm talking about.
The Constitution... It's a symbol. People in this country assume the Constitution defines what the government CAN do and in part that is true. Mostly the Constitution is supposed to say what the government CANNOT do. Liberals will no longer allow students to study the Constitution. Every time such courses in high school are proposed, they get shot down. That's crazy. Everyone should know what the Constitution says, not what you think it says, but what it says.
The American Dream... It's a symbol. The Left has defined the American Dream of a spouse, a home and a job worth doing as either silly or unattainable. Masking fun of people who want to live in two parent families is stupid, but too many feminists think that the two parent family is evil, because it is vestige of the patriarchal paradigm. Having a home and a mortgage is of course so buswasee. And work a job worth? You'll just exploited. It's all so strange.
American Exceptionalism... Again, it's a symbol. The Left has just about declared war on this symbol. Multiculturalism makes the case that all cultures are equal. They are not. Some cultures are better than others. Ours is the best that has ever existed, because we are able to get people from different backgrounds and tribes and religions and whatever to work together without fear. The fear is the key. We do not normally fear that we will be hurt by our fellow American or our government every day.
The nature of symbols. They have a name. They have a meaning. and they have substance... maybe.
Segment 1
When I signed up for training at KEOS, I assumed that no one listened to the station. You see I was talking to one of the other volunteers here at the station and he said that he was frightened when he started at KEOS because he thought there all these people out there LISTENING, JUDGING and finding him wanting. That kind of disturbed him. Me, aht, my training is that of an engineer. I've worked at being a computer programmer. I do not believe something until there is some type of evidence.
Right now, I perceive that I am but a voice calling to you from the velvet black across the gulf of our mutual incomprehension. Do you exist? I do not believe so. Why you might ask, assuming that you are listening, that you indeed ARE out there listening... If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? This question was posed hundreds of years ago. Not until the last 100 years could we answer it effectively. If a tree falls, it creates a sound wave, it disturbs the air as it plummets to the ground. It disturbs the ground when it hits causing shock waves to emanate from it landing. It thus follows that a sound was produced... but was it heard. The physical world does not care whether it was heard, it just producing the sound and you have to decide to hear it... by being there.
I know, too weird, but I wanted to make the point that I am having problems with the nature reality. The French came up with a set of tools for dealing with symbols. The idea was that we have a name for a symbol. Then we have a definition as to what the symbol means. Then we have the physical object itself. Think really hard about this. Can a symbol be destroyed, if it does not have a physical basis in Reality?
Let me give you a couple of examples. The Statue of Liberty. The name evokes memories and feelings and SHOULD mean something to you.
Emma Lazarus wrote The New Colossus about the Statue of Liberty
"Keep, ancient lands your storied pomp!" cries she,To the immigrants of the late 1800's coming into New York Harbor after a harrowing journey, the Statue of Liberty was a sign of hope and fulfilment of a dream... maybe. Can you imagine that? Being on a ship, standing at the railings, coming out of the fog and seeing the old lady standing there with her torch held high, a culmination of a LOT of work and a lot of bother. No one immigrated to the United States in the late 1800's without having to leave everything behind, thousands of years of history, ancestral burial grounds, all the known and unknown certainties. Yet the Statue of Liberty made a promise. The promise America has always made to immigrants, give up blood and bone and I shall give you liberty AND a chance at prosperity. Over the years immigrants have continued to come, some for the prosperity and some for the Liberty and all that time the Statue of Liberty has aged. The physical object is not what it once was, BUT the symbol of the Statue of Liber is still there... for the foreigners.
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor.
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It used to be that the symbol was felt deeply by all American. I do not think that is true anymore. Too many of us have decided that the Liberty is a given. We have decided that the promise of prosperity was a false promise. In short the Statue of Liberty is a false symbol, because it did not in fact keep its promise to all the immigrants.
I kind of find that fascinating because this divide between Americans right now. This unwillingness for the Left and the Right to share the same Reality. I know, I know, I know, you're saying, WHAT!? That's what you get when you start listening to the French. You start getting confused as to what the symbols mean and what the Reality is. Our symbols have become debased because we have become uncertain about the promise of America. Do we REALLY offer Liberty and a chance at prosperity OR is the liberty and the prosperity all a lie? The Right takes the view expressed by the foreigners, by the first generation immigrants which is that America is better than back home. Anything would be better than back home. The Left takes the position that America because it has not attained equality of outcome is lying to the immigrants. Some of the immigrants will fail and not achieve prosperity, this the Statue of Liberty is lying. There's a problem with the Left's analysis. It doesn't factor in the worth of liberty. The Left does not acknowledge that Liberty has any value, because they have never had to be without it. Liberty is by the definition of the Left, a right, thus is of no value. Since the immigrants are not assured of prosperity, they are being lied to.
Debasing a symbol like the Statue of Liberty is a bad idea, because it promotes hopelessness. If you are of the Left, then you are offended by what I have said, because of course you believe in liberty. The problem between us, then is that we do not agree on what liberty entails. As a member of the Right I cannot stand a really strong central government. History teaches me that a strong central government inevitably robs you of your liberty. To a member of the Left, a strong central government is the only bulwark against the tyrannies of the corporations, the rising tide of religious fundamentalism in this country and of course racism. Without a strong central government, people will inevitably be exploited by corporations, brainwashed by the crazies in pews and Blacks will be re-enslaved. Or that is how I see it. You may not, but there is a problem. Just because you as a member of the Left do not individually share all three of these views means nothing. The activist base of the Left does. I draw your attention to movon.org, the dailykos and the Democratic Underground. These three websites are the center of the Democratic Party and represent the true asperations of the Left. Regardless of what you think the activist Left thinks that all three of statements are true.
Let's talk a minute about the substance of the Statue of Liberty. I mean, the copper and steel and concrete. The Statue of Liberty appears to me to be the original, but how much of it is the original copper, steel and concrete. Got me. We did a refurbishment of the Statue of Liberty within the last 30 years, so the substance of symbol has been renewed. People donated to have it refurbished. Symbolically we said that the Statue of Liberty was worth something as it is. Are you getting this? We as a people decided that the Statue of Liberty as it is, was worth saving from the ravages of time. We as a people are in dispute as to whether the symbol called the Statue of Liberty still means the same thing.
Now, let's move on to the next example of symbols with substance. The White House. What does the White House represent? That symbol has become very muddy. When the White House was built, it was supposed to be a statement to the world that we had a palace like all the other real nations had. Yes, indeed, we were as good as any other nation even though we had this weird form of government that no one else had. When the British burned the White House in the War of 1812, we white washed the outside to cover up the smoke stains and went on. The White House was in essence a lie that became the truth. When the White House was built we were NOT a great nation. We did NOT have that much power. We said something to the world... that we aspired to be a great power. Now the symbol and the substance of the White House are the truth. We are a great power. We are the greatest nation in the history of the world. There has never been anything like the United States, since the last Ice Age. Egypt was just as powerful in the Middle East at one time. China and India were as powerful in their areas, but no nation in the history of the world has been powerful as we are in EVERY region of the world.
At this point in time, people look at the White House and see... the White House, a self-defining symbol. It doesn't really signify anything. You look at the Statue of Liberty, again, you have memories and feelings. When you view the White House, do you see the presumption associated with this people's palace. Yeh, I know, that doesn't sound right, because the Communists had People's everything... It used to be that the White House was the people's palace. In 1828, Andrew Jackson threw the wildest party in the history of the country to celebrate his becoming President.
From being a presumptions palace, the White House become a symbol of our power. Everyone around the world knows that the White House symbolizes real power. When the Statue of Liberty was built it was stating the truth and by my standards the promise of the Statue of Liberty has remained true. When the White House was built, it was a building to make us feel less inadequate when compared to all the older nations. Now, here's where it gets funny. All the palaces that existed in 1787 look quaint, if not silly next to the White House, because they are symbols of past glory. I don't think there is a single palace from that time anywhere on the planet where the palace signifies the power of the nation that hosts it.
What would happen were the White House destroyed? Well, it nearly was, United Airlines Flight 93 could have done some damage to the White House, but so what? The White House is a symbol with substance. If the White House staff and the President were saved, then the White House could easily be rebuilt. I mean, the replacement portion of the Pentagon was up and running in less than two years. So then could have the White House be up and running in less than two years. I personally feel that the White House could be totally destroyed, not a brick left on top of a brick, and it would mean nothing. The White House resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Whatever building is setting there is by definition, the White House. If the American people decide that the people's palace shall not be rebuilt, then it will not be rebuilt. If we move our seat of government to New York City, then the White House will be in New York City... maybe. The old White House would be in Washington, D.C. and have the same status as all those old palaces around the world.
On the other hand, I would be very upset were the Statue of Liber were destroyed. As far as I can see, the Statue of Liberty is an original. Of course, were it destroyed, we would rebuild it, because it is a symbol of our nation and some symbols have to have substance.
Oh, hell, I know this entire discourse is freaking you out, but I wanted to make the point that the symbols from our past have been degraded by re-interpretation and it irritates me. The Statue of Liberty does not shine as brightly because too many people think our country is not a land of opportunity. Too many people have decided that liberty does not need protecting because it's a given. Tell that to people in the Sudan. Liberty is not a given.
Why must the Left do that? Why must the Left redefine the symbols that hold up this country? Somehow or another the Left has lost its mind by my standards. Our country is strong because we gave up blood and bone as the main way to define our country. We substituted symbols. Instead of a country of total substance where citizens could trace their lineage back thousands of years and the soil contained many generations of their ancestors, we have become a country of symbols. By adopting our symbols, people from other countries become Americans.
Let me show you what I'm talking about.
The Constitution... It's a symbol. People in this country assume the Constitution defines what the government CAN do and in part that is true. Mostly the Constitution is supposed to say what the government CANNOT do. Liberals will no longer allow students to study the Constitution. Every time such courses in high school are proposed, they get shot down. That's crazy. Everyone should know what the Constitution says, not what you think it says, but what it says.
The American Dream... It's a symbol. The Left has defined the American Dream of a spouse, a home and a job worth doing as either silly or unattainable. Masking fun of people who want to live in two parent families is stupid, but too many feminists think that the two parent family is evil, because it is vestige of the patriarchal paradigm. Having a home and a mortgage is of course so buswasee. And work a job worth? You'll just exploited. It's all so strange.
American Exceptionalism... Again, it's a symbol. The Left has just about declared war on this symbol. Multiculturalism makes the case that all cultures are equal. They are not. Some cultures are better than others. Ours is the best that has ever existed, because we are able to get people from different backgrounds and tribes and religions and whatever to work together without fear. The fear is the key. We do not normally fear that we will be hurt by our fellow American or our government every day.
The nature of symbols. They have a name. They have a meaning. and they have substance... maybe.
posted by aRandomTexan at
4:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home