The basic politics dance— Progressives and Liberals to the Left - Conservatives and Moderates to the Right will work fine.  No New Conservatism Liberals allowed, as all conservatism is the Right, even if it appears on the Left.  Once this is reenacted, balance will come naturally, because Progressives and Liberals are concerned about the populace of the country, while Conservatives and Moderates are concerned about corporate power and elite control.

I feel certain this process is being enacted and it will be up to the voters in the Primaries to take out the Conservatives on the Left.  It is a process.  It took at least 40 years for Conservatism to gain so much power over the Liberals, and it could take at least 40 years to throw Conservatism out of the Left,  but the Democratic Party must be about the populace’s business, instead of the business of saving everything for the corporations and the elite, or there needs to be another political party institutionalized into constitutional law to represent the populace.

The basic politics dance— Progressives and Liberals to the Left - Conservatives and Moderates to the Right will work fine.  No New Conservatism Liberals allowed, as all conservatism is the Right, even if it appears on the Left.  Once this is reenacted, balance will come naturally, because Progressives and Liberals are concerned about the populace of the country, while Conservatives and Moderates are concerned about corporate power and elite control.

I feel certain this process is being enacted and it will be up to the voters in the Primaries to take out the Conservatives on the Left.  It is a process.  It took at least 40 years for Conservatism to gain so much power over the Liberals, and it could take at least 40 years to throw Conservatism out of the Left,  but the Democratic Party must be about the populace’s business, instead of the business of saving everything for the corporations and the elite, or there needs to be another political party institutionalized into constitutional law to represent the populace that are being gutted of everything they thought was the middle:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/821.html

Given there are about 18,000 towns and cities in the USA, please give an
algorithm that will make voters select the reforming elements that will reshape
the Democratic Party.  It is somewhat myopically optimistic that reform can
happen in even our lifetime.  Far as I can tell it will go at a glacial speed of
educating the voting public to learn to think what politicians would be better
for their benefit.  They need to develop a clear idea what is in the public’s best
interest.  I think harsh penalties for corruption do need to be established, but
once established an enforcement panel needs also to be created and a watch
dog over the panel then a watchdog over the watchdogs, see it is an unending
labyrinth of Big Brothers. 

Some rules need to be invented where the corruption is stopped before it gets
started.  Some ruling commission or some hierarchy that judges the behavior
of those who participate in the inter-related economic and political systems. 
But I thought the voters already do that!  Oh, but they, the voters, are ignorant,
so getting rid of their ignorance must be the keystone to the entire edifice.  Are
we back to square one?

Right now the system supports the bribery going on. We can have a system to where it is very hard to do it, doesn’t pay to do it and the penalties would be so severe if you were caught. Such as the death penalty for treason. To me if you can’t show with your ideas (petition) to convince then anything else is an attack on our political system and worthy of permanent incarceration and hard labor. The kind that wears you down to an early death. We need a disincentive system to discourage such things, not an advocacy of them as we have now.

Not reforming the Primary Election Process; reforming the Democratic Party through the Primary Election Process.  It is called voting.  Voting in the Primaries to remove the conservatives and moderates from the Democratic Party, so that only liberals and progressives will be on the side of the Political Left, which is a never ending process.

I am not sure what polishing means, I just know the system needs it.  It will take
others to say what reforming the Primary Election Process might be.  What it
means to remove Mammon form the equation.  Avarice and bribery has always
existed in the political world, and will be attempted at every chance.  It is human
nature to take advantage of their co-habitants of this world.  How to separate
them and the religious who confuses the sacred with government of the many
diverse from the body politic is to be spelled out in a cogent plan that doesn’t
insult our intelligence.  It would be refreshing if a conservative voice with a
conscience for the good of the entire population could make a contribution, but
that might be asking for Pluto to be a major planet.

First we need to remove Mammon from the equation in his imps, avarice and bribery, then we could have a chance of returning to a more responsive gov’t. Right now corporations & their owners rule in how most of our gov’t functions. We need to separate them, and religion, from our body politic in order to have it represent us and not them. The “Rogue Evita of Wasilla” won’t be on our side for that any time soon.

Not the Republicans with more “economic stasis” that has destroyed our country economically; but a firm reforming through the Primary Election Process of the “economic stasis” out of the Democratic Party, so that the Democratic Party will be able to actually represent the Political Left;  then, and only then, will our government have two strong Liberalism and Conservatism Wings that are each strong enough for our country to have balance and be able to soar to new economic heights with the populace being lifted out of “economic stasis”.

Yes, I agree with you MarthaA.  That is exactly what conservativism means, at
least in the political climate of today’s world, not only in the United States.  But in
retrospect, it is more, it means a reversal of human progress.  It means going
back to conserving the wealth of the few for the few from the labor of the many. 
The original and elemental ideology of Democratic political motivation is the party
that creates the haven and hope for the disenfranchised, but it obviously needs
polished again.  The polish must come from grass roots energy and effort.  A re-
polishing of what the Democratic Party really stands for is what I perceive to be
needed.

” an economic stasis halted any further progress for a time.”

Conservatism—Politically Conservative IS economic stasis.

As in most fields of study, in the world of historians, there are always those
who have one theory and others who will propose counter theories.  Yes, the
Dark Ages are now considered to be much shorter than was previously thought
and are currently being called by not-so-extreme preachers of history the
Early Middle Ages that more or less began after the Roman Empire began to slip
into a mere memory of the past up to the time of the 11th, 12th, and 13th
century called the High Middle Ages that led through a Late Middle Age period
to the take over of a new energy called the Renaissance, but not before the
Black Death catastrophe struck Europe as well as a number of wars and an
economic stasis halted any further progress for a time.  While there were men
of intellectual accomplishment, the period was considered to be an illustration
of cultural and economic decline by Petrarch compared with the brilliance of
classic Greece and the Rome of antiquity. 

What is most interesting to historians is the inexorable cyclic phenomenon
between a period of extreme intellectual and artistic advancement that runs its
course then through careless and corrupt practices falls into a period of
extreme anti-intellectual and decadence in the culture.  In Greece, classicism
was expressed in the Hellenic Age that existed between the “Greek Dark Ages”
or Archaic epoch and the Hellenistic period, where such genius emerged in the
minds of Plato and Aristotle and those of their era.  Hellenistic impulses are
sometimes compared with the psychic attitude of the emotional archetype of
Dionysus in diametric opposition to the Hellenics who were of the Apollonian
more self-controlled self-reflective mind.  Joseph Campbell as well as Friedrich
Nietzsche made much of these two motives in terms of the characterization of
particular eras of populations.  It can be seen in the much earlier civilization of
Egypt but clearly seen as Rome rose then Rome declined, the Mongols rose and
the Mongols declined, Napoleon rose and Napoleon declined, Stalin rose and
Stalin declined.  It is a cyclic nature of populations to follow this pattern, they
rise and decline and rise again only to decline again. 

Such is what I believe to be the path the world is taking as we live and breathe. 
There was a heyday up until about two decades ago give or take a few years,
and then the decline in America began reaching a zenith at the end of the Bush
Administration and it is only now beginning to recover. But humans are an
impatient species and are like demand babies (I was one of those) who are not
satisfied to wait for anything.  It is a hard lesson to learn patience.

I have heard some of the more extreme preachers speak of the Enlightenment as a new Dark Age and that the Dark Ages weren’t in fact so dark. We seem to be moving to a kind of dark age ourselves but with high tech gear.

Actually Leefeller, it is my understanding that The Enlightenment, also known as
the Age of Reason, was a move away from religion.  The 17th-18th century was a
time when man began seriously to use his reason to discover the world,
dismissing the superstition and fear of the medieval world. The effort to discover
the natural laws which governed the universe led to scientific, political and social
advances. Enlightenment thinkers extensively examined the rational basis of all
beliefs checking for the reliability, justification and validity of all premises that
had prior been thought to be true, and in the process rejected the authority of
both church and state.

Night-Gaunt, I ran across these fascinating websites and thought you might
enjoy browsing and reading them if you haven’t already found them:
http://www-donut.fnal.gov/
http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/donutholes.html
The last one is a list of links (almost unending) that also look exciting.  There are
a number of graduate theses with pdf links but I haven’t had time to look at them
yet.

Using Swedish people as a template to compare the USA from may be a sweet spot to start, but does not seem fair.  Do the Swedes have the likes of Palin, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, the Pope to guide them on their mindless way? For some reason I do not think so!

She, I did not read further back to see were your comment was roused from, (I will review when the chance arises)  but if religion really has anything to do with enlightenment, it would be new to me, except maybe in some of the arts?

Accountability and integrity seem for the most part absent in what I perceive as society. Even without any research, I believe Canada and possibly many other countries may have a healthier society than the USA. 

A big problem may be that our education system is something like 35th in the world, while our military is number one, this says something to me.?

Sorry it took so long to get back to this most exhilarating discussion.  Been
busy and it is important for me to have my thoughts very orderly.  The subjects
we are talking about are very complex and one can get oneself into a cul de sac
of chaos if one step in front of the other is not secure.  So I will try to at least
start on this topic of belief.  Seems like, though, insight into the concepts of
action, the effort of trying and the doing of things also need examined before
we can conclude, or at least some of us can.  It will take a couple of posts and
I’m about to take a lunch break and continue to get some other things done
‘round here.  So here is a smidgen of my mind.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent
are full of doubt”. That was said by Bertrand Russell and I like it but a Carlinism
is so much funnier:  “Have you ever noticed…. Anybody going slower than
you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

There is just no simple way to get an intelligent understanding of what belief is. 
Or, why belief is not the cause of action. 

Leefeller has reduced it to a few sharply succinct phrases, but that only puts off
the inevitable.  As long as one thinks they know, they have beliefs that are as
flimsy as black snowflakes.  As they confront life, humans have an intrinsic
need to generate beliefs to explain the important experiences they have. 
Beliefs give voice to causes and effects and they are had about every aspect of
the world and ourselves.  We have beliefs because of an inherent need to
organize the world with good judgment, to make sense of the too often
obscure nature of the world, and ourselves as well.  This need, without a
doubt, was once vital for human survival and stayed on as a tool in our mental
toolchest. 

We have so many beliefs it seems like we have a mental vending machine that
cranks them out constantly.  You puts your money in, you gets your beliefs out.
We can’t even get out of bed without believing there is a solid floor there to put
our feet on and evidence that there is comes when we in fact put our feet
down, there is no more guessing, we know that it is solid and not a soggy bog. 
Beliefs are our comforts, they provide reason to feel good, and they are so
much a part of our mental activity that they become like tools, our tools,
we possess them, we own our beliefs.  We even say we inherit them and we
become identified by our beliefs.  They give importance to our purposes and
ambitions.

Logic enters into our beliefs when we want to check them for accuracy.  Logic
is another activity of the brain that follows a set of premises, or ideas, to
evaluate if there are consistent grounds to make a confirmable conclusion.  It
says the path of thinking is sound, not shaky, not Cornflakes. 

Having beliefs is like making up a story to say why things happen and they
seem to be rational to the believer, which means they conform to reality, that
their mind is free of defect. 

Evidence enters the picture when testing for undeniability.  Evidence affects the
nature of belief by offering sufficient material to justify belief.  When evidence
is demanded beliefs become divided.  Those that are kept that cannot be
confirmed to justify holding on to them are called theoretical beliefs. Belief
without any justified truth is better called faith.  And those where there are
sufficient facts are called justified true beliefs which is another description of
knowledge.  Reliability of beliefs then becomes an issue.

2.
Reliability has to do with the idea of risk and probability.  Knowledge is often
noted to be open ended but that is a misconception.  If anything qualifies to be
a piece of knowledge, it is by virtue of its definition true and fact based.  What
might add to the misconception is that there is no absolute way to prove
anything, knowledge included.  The use to which knowledge is put is a function
of the acumen of the one who will utilize it.  There is a qualification that even
though there is a risk that newly discovered facts will modify the merit of
knowledge previously collected, the principles of probability is employed to
give it the qualification, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant accepting
accumulation of information, as knowledge.

The power of evaluation is an alchemical activity of the mind, which provides
principles for which we persist in keeping beliefs, golden or lead.  It allows for
comparing a belief to a standard of truth based on coherence with reality,
some palpable proof that what is believed has solid ground.  But humans often
miscalculate in holding beliefs that are based on limited information and are
not able therefore to make wholesome judgments.  Furthermore, danger hangs
about beliefs that are not fully given substance that is applicable to bodies and
also applicable to minds.  Faulty beliefs about the body and the world present
physical risks that can lead to severe injury or death.

To be continued, but comments are invited in the meantime.  A good thinking
Saturday to you all.

To answer OzarkMichael who asked: ” Would the Jungle Man have had a true
belief if he had stayed on the island?”

I have to ask back: “About what?” “That…”

True the Golden Boy of Hope is showing he is really of clay and also flubs lines like “57 states” when he really meant to say 47 etc. A tough job to do for most of us anyway. However as long as Obama does things that facilitate the most extreme reich wing in what they want, even as they continue to play the partisan game that actually works against them is interesting. Since they still get what they want. They got it out of Clinton & they are getting it now from Obama. That is what a co-opted duonopoly gets us.

During World War II various pacific islands got not just strangers but whole examples of a land(s) and technology that was only mythic to them. Subsequently when the war was over and the bases closed the natives still wanted the planes to fly in and leave presents. The Cargo Cult was invented. So they copied as best they could the radio and tower and miniature airplanes to entice them back. Even speaking into the “radio” using garbled remnants of what was said. It usually didn’t work but it was all they had as they could work out what they saw from their limited perspective of another culture with more advanced machines. How would we react if one comes here for a time that is over 1 million years old? Could we cope any better? Especially if we were just a marginal nuisance but no danger to them.

Night Gaunt said: News Flash the Great Wasilla Evita has stated that a possibility of running for the 2012 office isn’t out of the question and would be foolish not to entertain.

The Great Chicago Hope hasnt ruled out running either, although he has ruled out any support from Army ‘Corpsemen’, since the dead dont vote in national elections. Although maybe i speak too soon, because the dead have been known to vote in Chicago.

Leefeller said: To believe what one is told, is so much easier then seeking the real thing.

True. And sometimes it is all we can get.

Let me postulate that every belief would like to become knowledge, since knowledge is better than belief.

Knowledge is, in the words from an old song, “Nice work if you can get it.”

Leefeller wonders: Instead of a light bulb over ones head, seems when it comes to believe/trust/infer/assume it should possibly be a question mark.

Sometimes it is hard to tell if Leefeller is kidding, but i think this was a stroke of genius. yes, and if we admit the question mark over our own heads instead of assigning it to the other fellow we will all get along better.

The question mark instead of a light bulb is quite profound, and hopefully it will be continually appearing over our heads for some time to come.

Shenonymous, i noticed you crashed my plane!

Eheheh.

Would the Jungle Man have had a true belief if he had stayed on the island?

The most surprising aspect of Ozark Michael‘s story to me was that the jungle man didn’t take off into the tangle when the engine started and the loud noise defened everything around including him! Being so trustworthy isn’t necessarily that unusual though. Christopher Columbus found them on the islands of the Caribbean and thought them ideal for slaves. They were subsequently worked to extinction in less that 50 years.

Expecting others to be like you or less than you are both universal within the Human species that I can see. It is dependent on how others are automatically looked upon is where we get the differences in behavior. The Indians looked upon even strangers of a different aspect as being free and gentle as they were & welcomed with open arms, whereas Columbus looked upon the authocthons as lessers automatically and went about to exploit them as any way he and the others with him could. Even to their deaths. It would be better for them from his point of view. Their lives were of less importance than their “souls” and doing work for their greaters ultimately served their God but not the Indians. It all had to do with belief based upon experience and their humanity each of them had. Two realities clashed but only one won.

News Flash the Great Wasilla Evita has stated that a possibility of running for the 2012 office isn’t out of the question and would be foolish not to entertain. To quote Moral Oral from the show of the same name, “wow!” (Adult Swim claymation show—a modern version of “Davey & Goliath” sort of.)

From an obscure Thesaurus found in a archives of the Hoot Owl Piggly Wiggly Magazine stand.

Believe/trust/infer/assume

Assume something and a lawyer will hand one their ass in a basket, for assumption is not fact and everyone knows lawyers seek only the truth from the rule of law.

Trust someone and something with an open wallet and the moths will need to find a new home.

Infer something to mean what it seemed to mean and someone will always disagree.

To believe what one is told, is so much easier then seeking the real thing.

Instead of a light bulb over ones head, seems when it comes to Believe/trust/infer/assume it should possibly be a question mark.

As seems the word “believe” has evolved from the old meanings of,  supposition, Belief or Piety;  to bigger, better and much fuzzier things?

Provisionally, I agree with almost everything you said.  Actually, OzarkMichael, your amendments are a surprising improvement towards a more prosperous discussion. Belief still has to be evaluated.  It is my thesis that action springs from a range of emotional motivations.  Later I will present my case for belief, but not right away as ordinary life demands my attention.  Perhaps even tomorrow as it seems the germ that visits me twice a year has taken its first 2010 turn.  Double Drats!  Maybe Leefeller will come along and give us his usual incisive words of wisdom, or maybe Night-Gaunt.  Two lofty fellows.

Shenonymous remarks: I do wish you had resisted Heidegger and his “how one happens to find oneself” business. He is so obscure, his Dasein, the being for whom being is a question, and his archaeology of being and time.

Yes, you are right. It isnt good to complicate matters with new words. Also, it isnt helpful to make more steps in the process.

Your objection to Heidegger is reasonable. Let me offer this: that I might have been recollecting concepts that i read long ago as i ‘invented’ the concept of Belief leading to action. Often i consider myself spontaneous and creative when in fact i am only synthesizing at best and at worst retreading someone else’s(in this case Heidegger) thoughts.

Anyway, your objection is sustained. I withdraw the Heidegger phrase, and take full credit for whatever folly or brilliance i come up with.

I also withdraw the word “wisdom”. It doesnt really help to create more steps in the process. It is enough that the thesis seems to be proving itself to be correct. We have largely discounted scientific method as a source of human action. We have admitted that we do not walk by Knowledge.

The thesis: Human action springs from Belief.

A corollary: Belief is not only found in Religion, but in every human life

The implication: While our evaluation of the truth or falsehood of a Belief is aided by Knowledge, it was incorrect to demand that Religious Belief be based purely on Knowledge before we would consider it as true, since we now agree that Knowledge of fact is often absent in our daily lives and yet we Believe/trust/infer/assume quite correctly.

Agreed? or not?

True, a plane’s wings are reminiscent of a bird and birds do fly, but there is a
great difference between the size of a bird and an airplane.  There was no
reason except similarity in shape to think the plane could fly.  Now tires nor
tire tracks would be in his lexicon of words so he would only have belief to rely
on with respect to that bit of information.  He saw something in the sky, but
from his vantage point it was small like a bird.  He did hear the sound and
could assume it was connected to the small odd bird in the sky.  All are beliefs. 
When he was confronted by the Stranger and the large object, he had no
evidence the large object could fly and had only the word of the Stranger that it
could.  “Jungle Man: Well, I saw something. Are you saying that this large object
on the ground was up in the air before?”  The Jungle Man obviously was
incredulous that the object was up in the air.  All he had to go on was suspicion
that it wasn’t or belief if he believed the Stranger.  So whatever gestalt the
naive Jungle Man could muster together would be very flimsy at best.

How could he intuit the pilot was trustworthy having never met him before and
who is called The Stranger? Say he does “trust” The Stranger.  Now what kind of
movement is it the pilot did to get into the airplane as if it was a way out?  He
obviously knew his way in and out of the object as he claimed he landed in it. 
And what kind of residual wisdom was it the Jungle Man had that could make
him get into the plane that provided knowledge that the plane would get him
out of there?  The fact that he could synthesize data is not wisdom, it is
mathematical calculation and logic.  Logic is not wisdom, although gaining
wisdom might involve seeing the truth examined through the truth tables of
logical thinking.  Which has little to do with truth and reality, it has only to do
with the internal integrity of propositions.

I do wish you had resisted Heidegger and his “how one happens to find
oneself” business.  He is so obscure, his Dasein, the being for whom being is a
question, and his archaeology of being and time.

You still have not defined your use of the word wisdom, OzarkMichael. 
Anything you say with that word in it is for me hazy and unclear.  You have a
habit of mixing metaphors and using idiosyncratic definitions completely
clouding any rational thought!  Who is the ‘we’ you think tends to think of
themselves as far more evolved than the Jungle Man, for instance?  You
fallaciously ascribe beliefs to others of which you have no idea!  Such a TD
habit!  Do you bother to ask?  NO!  I am not so sure you are sure of anything! 
The anecdote about the airplane and assuming it will work is immaterial.  Do
you drink water out of a faucet?  That is much more relevant to your survival. 
Have you made a scientific study of the water you drink at home, at work, at a
restaurant?  We all assume many things about our life.  It would take an
encyclopedia to list them all!  So what?  Trust is based on experience.  We drink
the water and do not get sick or see others die so we assume it is safe to drink. 
There was a time when humans did get sick and die from the water they drank. 
We get on airplanes because there is a track record of uncountable millions
upon millions of mileage people have traveled without incident and assume
based on probability theory that everyone develops that we will fly safely to our
destination. So what?  It is true and no one would argue in their right mind that
we don’t assume a lot of stuff.  That is hardly the kind of wisdom we are
talking about. It is practical wisdom.  And your use of the word knowledge is
not the definition of knowledge of which we are speaking here.  Practical
knowledge is what you are mixing up with epistemological knowledge of how
we know what we know and what is the nature of knowledge.  We seem to be
only defining and re-defining words for you.

Leefeller postulates: I believe therefore I do not think?

Hmm. Well, let me try. “I acted therefor i believed”
We must put De Cart before the horse at least in the verbiage, since Descartes did it that way.

Leefeller asks: My original question, why do some or is it most who seem to believe in something, a belief which may be anything under the sun, have this inherent need or want to have others agree, even demand such?  Is it possibly from self doubt or a desire to bolster support in numbers, so it sort of becomes a cause?

Does the number of people believing a certain thing increase its likelihood of being correct? We would all say “no”. Yet we all appeal to numbers anyway,  and in fact those who disagree with the belief in question are often the first ones to insist on a head count.

I just read the ant story, and my thoughts are not of Feynman, but of the ants…how they act without knowing. It is all chemical I guess.

Is that what humans do in airports? In life?

Shenonymous notes: It is problematic the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad hopelessly extends incongruently a dogmatic relativity and at the same time the desire to be universal.

If this is a fatal flaw, what of us? Isnt this what we do also?

I am happy today. I hoped Shenonymous would engage with the story better if there was some fear in it.

Is the story only about fear though?

I would not say it was only fear. The Jungle Man considered everything available. True, he had very little knowledge, but he had reasons to think the plane could fly. Perhaps he noticed the shape was similar to a bird, perhaps the tire tracks from out of nowhere on the ground suggested that flight was possible. The airplane’s appearance coinciding with what he saw and heard in the sky, and then when he hears the sound of the engines starting, quite similar to the hum heard before, the possiblity of flight became distinct. The plane had wings that suggest it is bird-like, etc etc. Who know how much more makes up the Gestalt, even of a primitive person?

And one more thing. Maybe the most important. He had the pilot, who he intuited was trustworthy. He had not only the pilot’s word but also the pilot’s example… the pilot got into the plane as if it was a way out.

Oh, yes, fear is the factor which made the immediacy of decision more necessary, but fear doesnt make the decision. 

All these things, including the fear, made up the Gestalt. The Jungle Man stood at the doorway and used what wisdom he had to integrate everything that was percieved, felt, and anticipated. There is a word new to me that might apply, “Befindlichkeit”, which involves how you find yourself and what is on the horizon.

Trusting this wisdom, he Believed. Then he took an action based on Belief. Although his motives and Knowledge are a hodgepodge, not clear and firm like ours is.

Or is it?

We tend to think of ourselves as being far more evolved than the Jungle Man, because we are “civilized”. I am not so sure about that.

Many civilized people get on airplanes, but they couldnt tell you how an airplane really works. The Knowledge of real facts is usually absent. Oh, the people who designed the plane possess facts and Knowledge, and the airplane’s condition is evaluated and known as a fact… (more or less)... by the inspectors and ground crew.

An amazing amount of trust is involved when we step on to a plane. Do you think that trust is a type of Knowledge or a type of Belief? I consider trust to be Belief.

Much of what modern people do is based on the conceit that we act because we Know. On closer inspection, the paucity of Knowledge is astounding. 

The facts are hidden from view, and yet people act constantly. What we call civilization is not an increase in Knowledge generally, but specialization of Knowledge in a few people and the rest of us acting on trust.

If we get on the plane absent mindedly, it is possible to never see the outside of the plane, and the tunnel we walk down could be leading us into a bus for all we know.

And yet we act. What sort of Knowledge is it that comprehends none of the facts and yet the person acts anyway? It isnt knowledge at all.

I consider it to be Belief.

And then the question arises, since so little is known by the modern passenger, is our Belief true or false when we get on a plane?

Another question: Are we really more Knowledgable than the Jungle Man, who walked around the plane, inspecting the ground and the wings, asking questions all the while? Was his Belief true or false when he got into the plane?

Finally: Because the Jungle Man has fear, does this make his Belief less true than ours? Perhaps fear disqualifies his Belief completely. Shall we say that the Jungle Man’s Belief is ‘fictitious’?

Sorry, I forgot the last sentence here, so I am re-posting to make it easier to
see the conclusion and the point.

Another story about knowledge vs. belief, or reality and appearance

Another story about knowledge and belief, or reality and appearance comes
from the improbable intersection of two fields of study: entomology (as
practiced on an amateur basis by a budding physicist) and computer science.
Richard Feynman, recalling his home experiments with ants’ navigational
behavior, finds that the insects either move randomly or follow each other’s
trails, and that the repetition of small deviations when they follow each other
results in a composite trail that gives the illusory appearance of order.

      “One question that I wondered about was why the
      ant trails look so straight and nice.  The ants look
      as if they know what they’re doing, as if they have a good
      sense of geometry.  Yet the experiments that I did to try to
      demonstrate their sense of geometry didn’t work. . . .  At
      first glance it looks like efficient, marvelous, brilliant
      cooperation.  But if you look at it carefully, you’ll see
      that it’s nothing of the kind.”

None of Feynman’s ants moves individually in a straight line, but the collective
movement nevertheless produces a straight line, simulating purposeful effort.

Another story about knowledge vs. belief, or reality and appearance.

This one comes from the chance combination of two fields of study:
entomology, as practiced on an amateur basis by a budding physicist, and
solving problems for computer science.  Richard Feynman, recalling his home
experiments with ants’ navigational behavior, finds that the insects either move
randomly or follow each other’s trails, and that the repetition of small
deviations when they follow each other results in a composite trail that gives
the illusory appearance of order.

      “One question that I wondered about was why the
      ant trails look so straight and nice.  The ants look
      as if they know what they’re doing, as if they have a good
      sense of geometry.  Yet the experiments that I did to try to
      demonstrate their sense of geometry didn’t   work. . . .  At
      first glance it looks like efficient, marvelous, brilliant
      cooperation.  But if you look at it carefully, you’ll see
      that it’s nothing of the kind.”

Hello OzarkMichael - We have to be clear.  Fear eclipses belief.  Fear is a
passionate emotion.  If you will recall I said it is emotion not knowledge that
motivates action. 

The Jungle Man had empirical evidence that the ground was shaking more
violently than ever, the explanation given by the Stranger seemed more
reasonable than his belief based on his own lack of empirical experience.  Surely
you noticed.  Of course, the Jungle Man, believes he is now safe in the airplane,
and takes off with the Stranger. After a climb of about 140 feet, the plane falls
from the sky due to the pilot’s stalling the plane by accelerating too fast and
nervously pulling the nose of the airplane up too steep in his emotionally charged
state of mind rushing to get away, but believing he had everything under control,
then what?  Belief everywhere, knowledge nowhere, passion in the pilot’s seat.

Shenonymous says: Belief itself never instigates action.

I would like to use a story to explore that. I want to tease out the difference between Belief and Knowledge, and show where action arises

A man in a jungle sees a strange sight in the sky. He hears deep humm from the sky as well.

An hour later, walking along, he comes to a clearing, and there he sees a person, dressed strangely, standing beside a large object. This strange person walks up to him and here is the discussion they had:

Jungle Man: What is that strange object you were standing beside?

Stranger: It is an airplane. Didnt you see me fly it and land it here?

Jungle Man: Well, I saw something. Are you saying that this large object on the ground was up in the air before?

Stranger: Exactly. And the reason i flew in was to rescue you. The mountain over there is a volcano, and we think it is going to erupt.

Jungle Man: The mountain will erupt? I have not seen this ever happen.

Stranger: Surely you have noticed the earth shake a little, and some smoke from the mountain? These are signs that the mountain is going to erupt.

Jungle Man: Ah. So what are you going to do?

Stranger: I am going to take you in my airplane. Up and out of here. To someplace safe.

Jungle Man: I am not so sure I want to get in the airplane. It doesnt look safe at all. I dont know if it really will fly. If it does fly, does it ever fall?

Stranger: Not usually, we land safely most of the time. See? I landed there and rolled on the tires to here.

The Jungle Man inspects the tires and the runway, then inspects the wings on the plane. Meanwhile the earth shakes more violently then ever, and the pilot hops in the plane and starts the engine. To his surprise the Jungle Man comes to the door, glances at the interior of the plane, and sits in the copilot seat.

It is problematic the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad hopelessly extends
incongruently a dogmatic relativity and at the same time the desire to be
universal.  Inherent is the fact that the morality expressed is based on the
Judaic idea of morals.  How can that be supervened to allow the Judaic view of
good and bad to be an authentic candidate for universality?  It isn’t even clear
what good and bad mean here.  Is anyone brave enough to say what they
mean?  Eve certainly cannot be considered bad.  Judaism generally doesn’t
recognize “evil” other than the evil actions of human beings. Eve’s only
transgression was that she acted against God’s order, learned what is moral
and what is not and as a result was handed a death penalty as a reward. 

Looks like we’ve drifted out of the Garden.  Much was ignored, much not really
dealt with, nor anything resolved, but no matter the problems there will never
really go away.

The word wisdom is a little more weighty than the somewhat thin way it is
applied by you OM.  Always hoping for some precision of thought, but with only
good intention, I have to say I don’t quite understand what you mean by
“Perceiving the gestalt meaning is what wisdom does.  Trusting one’s wisdom
leads to belief…”  It is confusing what your definition of wisdom is there and
taking the perception of the gestalt as something wisdom does is unclear.  It
seems you are equating wisdom with opinion.  Opinions are one’s beliefs. 
The significance of what you said is internally redundant.  But to let your
sentence stand, what kind of wisdom are you talking about?  And how does it
lead to belief?  What kind of process is it?  I would disagree that belief leads to
action. 

Belief itself never instigates action.  Emotional intention is the source of all
physical action and some degree of passionate emotion for anything other than
ordinary motivation to move from place to place and conducting the ordinary
business of life.  When a belief provides a channel for highly emotional
reaction, first of all there is little mind involved, then the body reacts to the
emotion and commits to action.  It seems important that we are speaking the
same language if genuine discussion is wanted.

Minimizing the importance of mathematics is somewhat fastidious.  It is more
than just a beautiful field of work. It is the highest use of human mental powers
in abstract thinking and provides the best model on how other kinds of orderly
reasoning happens.  Having the skill of mathematics generalizes into how to
solve problems, organize thoughts, interpret the data, apply the data, and
evaluate the data.  It is a paradigm of thought “doing.”

There really is no need to plunk in all shades of grey between true beliefs and
false beliefs, it only fuzzies up the point being made.  It is an intentional
misdirection.  And it is hardly likely that people hold to true beliefs for poor
reasons, as by definition holding to true beliefs are the best of reasons to hold
them.  If anyone holds to false beliefs there is no doubt they think, albeit
falsely, they hold them for good reason else they would be miserable through
and through.  Where did you get that belief of yours that “no one gets to a
perfectly true belief for the perfectly correct reasons?”  That is quite a
convoluted statement.  How do you think this whole thing about true beliefs
and false beliefs happens?  Let me answer for you.  It is all accidental, right?

If we are to get anywhere in this discussion it is an obligation to make sure we
speak the same language.  There is a kind of mawkishniess that permeates and
the thinking needs to be more rigorous (not rigor mortis Leefeller! Just thought
I’d head you off, hahaha…I know you!)  Some self-reflection of how the
language is being used is demanded.  Otherwise we are just slipping around on
that deceptive frozen pond, there is a danger of falling through the ice.

Shenonymuos said:  Doing -  OM calls doing an action.  I agree but I further suggest that Doing
may be more than a physical process, but can be a thought process as in Doing a math problem.

Well, ok. When the problem solver commits to an answer, and owns that answer, that might be a type of doing. Although mathematics is a beautiful field of work, somehow it doesnt seem like a high order of human doing, since calculators can do the same thing, and do it better. But yes, whenever a person commits to a conclusion, it is a type of doing.

Shenonymous said: Generally, to believe is to
think that something is true regardless of whether it is or not, it necessarily involves the quality of truth.  Therefore, there are true beliefs and false beliefs.

Absolutely. Furthermore I would put all shades of grey between them. It would be possible, even likely, that people hold to true beliefs for poor reasons. Others hold to false beliefs for good reasons. I dont think anyone gets to the perfectly true belief for the perfectly correct reasons.

Shenonymous said a week or two ago: One can either choose to love or not to love. Sort of a Hamletian inquiry. (Oh, don’t you love my neologism?)

Yes. And i loved that whole post. Sometime I want to get back to that post.

Earlier I said: “Perceiving the gestalt meaning is what wisdom does. Trusting one’s wisdom leads to belief. Belief leads to action. Without absolutely knowing ourselves or what is on the other side, we settle upon an orientation and then commit ourselves to action.”

Leefeller comments: If this is true, it explains the existence of bigots and their comprehensive trusting of (using the word loosely here)  wisdom, which leads to belief.  It seems this defined use of wisdom leaves no room for those others.

Ignorance defined as wisdom comes to define belief, is this the completeness of gestalt?

For some people, yes. I am not writing about only the exceptionally bright people, or the good people, I am writing about all people. Including the bad ones and the foolish ones. Absolutely everyone believes in order to act. Or as Shenonymous might prefer, to take a mental action.

Some time ago I said that believe justifies action. Perhaps that word connotes an outward justification. But n, i meant inwardly. The belief and action could be quite wrong. It would not be ‘justified’ to anyone else or to God. My meaning was more along the lines of an internal justification, as in crossing a threshold where the action could be done by the person.

If, as Leefeller says, the person’s wisdom does not leave room for others, that certainly would make us wonder at what step along the process the person went wrong.

Who said?  “I think for therefore I believe”.  Da Cart before the horse! How about this,  I believe therefore I do not think?

One last thing, I believe for therefore so should everyone else or I do not think nor should you?

My original question, why do some or is it most who seem to believe in something, a belief which may be anything under the sun, have this inherent need or want to have others agree, even demand such?  Is it possibly from self doubt or a desire to bolster support in numbers, so it sort of becomes a cause?

I like my coffee so should everyone! 

OM, is sinning sort of like the hokey poky, everyone has done it?

Oh m’gosh, Leefeller.  I posted too soon.  M’thinks it should have been a hamster
(they spin on wheels) and besides, didn’t the old grouch TG call us hamsters, or
maybe he just called me that (me being a female and all)?  You present good
questions and I will think on them with my little hamster brain whilst I twirl and
twirl and twirl.

Night-Gaunt expressed, “I found it curious that there seemed to be only two
important criteria for godhood…”

I’ve developed an equal curiosity, Night-Gaunt, about the two necessary and
sufficient conditions to be a god in this tradition.  (Much is comparable with
the Greeks, and you are uncommonly observant about the tragic hero.)

As long as Adam/Eve followed God’s commands, they would live presumably
forever in the Garden.  Since in their creation, they already had immortality, it is
odd that there would even be a tree of life there, as if the God anticipated their
fall from His grace.  That part is what I found most obviously puzzling.  Not the
anticipation, mind you, since this God is Omniscient and Omnipotent. 
Once knowing good and evil (morality), a condition that would give them the
increased quality of divinity, they are made to pay the price of immortality. 
Was that a kind of equality the basically tyrannical God of the Garden simply
put would not tolerate?  Didn’t this God devise a plan to undermine his two
semi-divine but credulously mindless progeny?

There are many pools of moral exempla into which we can drown in this
foreboding chapter to the Bible, such as the temptation itself and why humans
were created to be vulnerable to it (what was God’s motive?), as if we could
know the Mind of God! Shall we make it up?  But we did!  Then there is the
serpent and Satan as a character in God’s Plan, the Garden on Earth, the
banishment, the incredulous chat between God and Adam, the problem of Eve,
which in itself holds an important matter of misogynously interpretative
question as well, etc., each of which if we were to treat this morals guidebook
properly would take more than an abbreviated paragraph or two. There is much
too much to “pack” into one forum entry.  There are wages from going too fast. 
Questions that naturally occur to a mind that is awake but one that suits a
mind intentionally asleep.  Not giving them due consideration results in the
preferable condition of hasty opinion and beliefs.  Or shall we, as is usually the
case, because it is too painful to face the realities of existence, gloss over the
full impact of the content?  Sliding right into beliefs with ice skates on?  Being
aware that the thin ice of shallow perception provides only a veneer for belief? 
A caution against spinning must be invoked.

I ask again, what might the consequences be of this fable if Adam and Eve did
not commit that original sin?  What kind of universe would there then be? 

I ask again what kind of happiness is eternal bliss?  Imagine that you had no
mind.

I submit it is a death in the real sense of the word and therefore the story
provides an unacceptable psychological contradiction.

OM comment:

“Which i cannot say I know for a fact, but I have reasons to think it is true”.  As the use of the word “think”, is one really suggesting belief?

“Then the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”  This part of story has always seemed most annoying and sexist at the same time.  First of all why couldn’t the talking snake really have been a fuzzy bunny rabbit or hamster?  Why only command the man, actually I know the reason, for it sets the mood why the Pope shits in the Vatican. 

If one thinks something may be true. then taking the next step really thinking that something must be true. It may be said the solid entrenched thought could be called belief. So when it comes out in the wash as all or none, it has become an absolutism with the famous missing sock. So this is when reason goes on holiday.

OM again:

“Which i cannot say I know for a fact, but I have reasons to think it is true”. 

If one does not know if something to be true, why would one subject themselves to believing it as true? Is this belief as faith?

Of course I cannot say I know facts from Shineolas. Being told or reading something then assimilating it as true or subjecting in my mind such,as the truth is not what I prefer to do with me mind. Openly accepting something as the absolute truth just because others believe or told me so seems the norm but has never worked for me.

Skeptically challenged I may be!

“This anticipation of ourselves today is marvelous, as if the scripture is alive, as if it was written for you and me.”-Ozark Michael

Well since it was written by humans for humans to instruct and to give weight to a past and be important to the present. With the human condition it hasn’t changed for most of us. {Excluding the mentally malfunctioning and psychopaths.} Such stories are fanciful ways of explaining how things came to be.

Humans are the only ones who can function outside of biological determination of behavior. The tiger isn’t evil because it stalks a deer to kill and eat. However humans kill for more than food but other reasons unrelated and for abstract reasons or simply because they find joy in doing so. That is evil when you hurt others for your own aggrandizement. But only beings like ourselves can do such evil or good, which is helping others. But it must be recalled that the evil ones never consider themselves as such among themselves. Only those preyed upon by them do.

I found it curious that there seemed to be only two important criteria for godhood. The knowledge of what Good is and Evil, the other was immortality. We could certainly gain the latter and know how to use the former. But we certainly wouldn’t be gods, such a primitive conception of explanation of elemental forces of the universe. But then humans have an incredible ability to reason and imaging and combine the two into a near infinity of permutations. Our strength and weakness combined. The Greeks understood it with the fatally flawed hero.

Good and evil are moral evaluations.  It’s always good to have a moment to
examine profound ideas.  Unless one is in academia, it’s usually a rare event.

It is true that it’s a common perversion to abbreviate that particular tree as the
Tree of Knowledge.  Good and evil are attached to it in the text.  But it is not
such a bad infraction, not such a ‘stretch.’  It is often called the Tree of
Conscience.  That is one way to think of it, as the totality of all morals and
immoralities.

It could also mean, as a special case figure of speech, where a pair of opposites
are used together creating an inclusive meaning, the “tree of the knowledge of
good and evil” may be taken to mean inclusively the tree of ‘all’ knowledge. 
Since we must rely on translations, there are several ways of seeing what is
there, it could be translated to mean “the tree of knowledge, both good an
evil.” 

It is mentioned not just once in Genesis.  With slight changes, it shows up four
times.  Applied to the tree, in Genesis 2:9 “And out of the ground made the
LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil.”  And again at 2:17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.’” 

Then about the knowledge to be acquired at Genesis 3:5, “for God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be
as God, knowing good and evil.’” and Genesis 3:22, “And the LORD God
said: ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever.’” 

The text is from the Jewish tradition, it behooves readers who really want to
understand Scripture, to learn to understand it within the context of a Jewish
perspective and reading Jewish hermeneutic analyses.

God commanded Adam/Eve not to eat from the tree the fruit of which tendered
free will.  This positions the two tenants of the garden to be ‘worthy’ of, as
opposed to simply attaining, absolute perfection and to have intimate
communion with God at much more elevated level than the one on which they
were created.

What could this idea of the tree of knowledge of good and evil repeated four
times really mean? 

As a small digression, it seems that if the primal parents had not submitted to
the temptation to eat from that tree of morality, the significance is that
humankind would not have been at all and we would not have the story of us to
speak of as we would not have been at all either.  So it also seems, then, that if
God wanted a populated earth, the failure of Adam/Eve was omnisciently
foreseen, since God had that talent, otherwise why would God have bothered at
all to create Adam/Eve?  Surely God would not have wanted Adam and Eve and
Himself to live eternally just the three of them, where would His fun have been
if that were the case?  As it is, or so it is said it is, they got to be banished,
became aware (ashamed) of their nakedness (ah, the morality seeps in
immediately), and they go on to parent all of humankind.  Could it be the case
that it was all divinely planned?  And if so, what are the implications of that? 
The tree is not unique to Judaism.  Cross cultural pollination occurred among
early civilizations.  At least 2,000 years before the Hebrew Bible, images are
found on cylinder seals, Sumerian, and in Greek mythology. Also in the Rig
Vedas and Upanishads, called the Tree of Jiva and Atman.  Instead of a serpent,
there are two birds.  Consciousness happens from eating the fruit.  In that
culture, it does not signify morality.  Humankind comes to know its own mind.

Tomorrow is another day.

Finally caught up with work, and a weekend off…

Shenonymous said: It seems to me there is a very strong corollary in Night-Gaunt’s intuition of OM’s story as a parable when considering the actions that are said to occur in the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and the dynamics of a fascistic system. Night-Gaunt theorizes (and I think correctly) that fascistic systems rely on simple structures of beliefs, a populace that is not used to deep thought and analysis, and do not ask questions.  This is comparable to the Abrahamic deity’s command and law against partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  Knowledge was dangerous and not something the primeval parents were permitted to have because of the same dynamic that tyrants impose on their minions.  They were ordered to remain, eternally, blessedly ignorant in their state of bliss in the perfect garden and all would be provided for them.  They were to have a “simple structure of beliefs.”  In his asterisked final comment, N-G says it all regarding the actions of the Catholic Church, teaching analysis created too many problems, producing “too many questions”
the church could not answer.

First, it is true that authority dislikes to be questioned. Please note that Authority that is not religious in nature, and even an authority with atheism as its basis, does not like being questioned. The Soviets put you in jail questioning them. Religion had nothing to do with that.

Second, tying fascism to various Bible episodes is a time honored tradition. As your Christian fundamentalist, I appreciate the opening this gives for us to study the scripture together.

The Biblical reference from above is in fact from Genesis Chapter 2 verses 16 and 17:

Then the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

While it is true that in the popular imagination the Genesis fruit comes from a ‘tree of knowledge’, and this has repeated everywhere so that it becomes a ‘fact’, we notice that the Genesis tree actually teaches the knowledge of good and evil. Not much of a difference, but it does open up some possibilities.
 
It is possible that the tree would teach its lesson in two ways. The first way is that the new humans could learn to differentiate good and evil by eating the fruit. Not only did they learn the difference, but they also paid a price.

The second way would be for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit. Later that day, upon asking God about it, He might have answered, “Well, now you know the difference between Good and Evil, so lets move on to the next lesson.

I do not see the Garden of Eden as a closed system or a fascist one. After all, things in gardens are there to grow. One must look if you want to learn.

If the story is from God, and if it is there to teach us some truth about ourselves, then let us draw the right lessons from it. I confess that I dont do this enough, yet surely we can learn a lot more from the Bible if we quote it correctly and give it some room to instruct us.

We each of us have learned the difference between good and evil. Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way. We, each of us, have sinned.

Now I am sure that you will protest that the problems are someone else’s fault, because you claim to not be a sinner at all. But it is strange that the Genesis story anticipates just such a protest, for that is exactly what Adam said:

And the man said, “The woman that you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

Adam blames first the woman and even indirectly blames God. We consider ourselves blameless. We blame God. 

This anticipation of ourselves today is marvelous, as if the scripture is alive, as if it was written for you and me.

Which i cannot say I know for a fact, but I have reasons to think it is true.

The Knowers according to OzarkMichael: ”My race track fable has another
value. It demonstrates a tendency among Knowers, namely that not a lot gets
done by them.”

It is amazing that could even be said.  There are 16 publishing companies in
the United States alone who publishes encyclopedias of general knowledge. 
These comprehensive compendiums of knowledge are updated editions, open
wells of information gathered by Knowers collectors of facts, not believers.

The Truthdiggers to whom OM refers Think they Know, but a good many
of them are like the fools that Plato via Socrates often pointed out the They-
Think-They-Know Fools.  Many of them were among the Sophists.  I encourage
that a search for the definition of Sophist be made if interested in
understanding what they stood for in the realms of Knowledge and Belief.  Just
as an aside, Nietzsche did not like Plato nor Socrates.  That doesn’t make him
right about them, nor did they have the be-all picture of reality either.  Nor
does that make Nietzsche completely wrong, nor did he have the best picture
of reality either.

Back to the track, The Race Track. Some Truthdiggers, I often call them
Truthdippers, do indeed screech words of worry about “the Believers (Christian
conservatives) as influencing government (doing) far beyond their numbers.”  It
is in equal volume to the screeching that those psychotic conservatives do
about the Leftists descent into hardline communism and other insanities.  For
me the two sides just cancel each other out and the rest of the Rationals
continue on their merry way.  Ah, yes, we must be careful to separate out the
good from the bad and there are just as many good conservatives as there are
good liberals.

The feel of drama seems to be a catalyst itself and we must always be on guard
not to fall into The Trap of Hubris.

The question posed by Night-Gaunt is a longing, “How long must we stand at
the door to knowing more…?” longing for the “plateau of wisdom” and he gives
a bit of a scant definition of wisdom.  But wisdom is doing more than having
the ultimate ability to understand and problem solve, it is to know what action
to take for given problems then take that action.  A wise man who does not act
cannot be known to be wise.

It is this petulant longing that concerns me, that impatience.  Knowledge is like
an open book, an open encyclopedia that is always heir to more information. 
The door is always open.  Wisdom is knowing morally what to do with a
collection of facts and how it is beneficial or harmful.

Gestalt of the world is an interesting idea.  Gestalt is seeing things as unified
wholes.  The implication of a whole is that there are parts.  But as we have
indicated elsewhere, the notion of reduction often misses the whole that is
greater than the sum of its parts.

Let us suppose there is such a thing as chaos (there is).  OM suggest as much
in his “Stepping through that door” paragraph of his post Feb 3 at 6:59pm.  In
that sphere of chaos, he envisions an ‘everything” that includes
incompleteness.  That is an admission that all knowledge is not had yet.  He
goes on to talk about the work that wisdom does, it constructs wholes or
gestalts.  However, I think he is wrong when he says what leads to belief is
trusting one’s wisdom.  I suggest it is not wisdom at all.  For wisdom has been
defined as knowledge-based.  I suggest that it is irrational passion that leads
theoretical beliefs to action.  Action is taken only when there is motivation and
motivation may come from either a passionately false belief or a passionate
belief based on knowledge.  Keeping this stuff from convolution is quite a
chore I can see.  You see OM, we will never close in on Plato’s Universals
(Ideals) because they exist only as models not as existents in the way that
one’s behavior exists in the real world of moral action.

Rest assured that your comments(Shenonymous, Leefeller, and Night-Gaunt) are taken cheerfully.

An old misunderstanding comes to mind. I said that the accusation of conspiratorial intent, which accuses people of intentionally ruining things, is a “step to fascism”.  That does not mean that the accusers are fascists. I do not think that Night-Gaunt is fascist or a bad person. Nor do i think Glenn Beck is. I rather like them both, and I am instructed by what they say.

It seems true, Night-Gaunt, we can never have complete information of our
surroundings but to survive we don’t need them. Indeed intelligence as we
have it isn’t necessary to survival.  If it was merely survival of the simian
called human we would never have developed any of the humanities.  We would
have only grown bigger and sharper teeth, sharper claws and the brain would
have shrunk to that of a felis catis domesticus.

That may be because we evolved to have extended powers of prediction from a
greater ability to think logically and like I discussed one time earlier, we also
have the power of closure.  However, what we close the gaps with becomes
important as to whether it qualifies as knowledge or if it qualifies as ‘mere’
belief.

No, I disagree.  I do not think it a detriment.  It is needed for the human
organism to anticipate the future as best as it can for survival.  But it has not
become as sophisticated as it can so it frequently makes big blunders.  It is a
trial and error strategy.

Yes, of course Gertrude stretches what happened to Friedrich, but we are
having a bit of a stretch occasionally here and I would hope the humor was not
lost on too serious a game playing and that it is intuited when fun is had and
when it is more serious.  Actually she did not say that, I put the words into her
long gone mouth.  My bad.

Well the eight texts by Nietz and biographies on him I have in my own library
give pretty much the same tale of his descent into madness.  Whether it was
due to congenital syphilis is not exactly certain, although that seems a stretch
as well.  He died at the age of 55, so if it was congenital I think he would have
died at a much earlier age and especially during those bouts of serious illness.
The death rate of the disease is 40% in infancy. If there is survival, a multitude
of defects such as in hearing or bone problems occur. I had not read where he
was hard of hearing or regularly broke bones.  The disease is caused by sexual
transmission to the mother, so we have to surmise if Nietzsche indeed did
have congenital syphilis, his mother either had sex out of wedlock with
someone infected, or the father did and gave it to his mother.  I haven’t read
where either parent contracted the disease, so it is my guess he did not have it
and did not become mad because of it.  I think he just thought too hard and it
stressed his brain and he kind of exploded.  (just a little joke here).  He was,
however, rather excitable and self-absorbed (which is consistent with his
philosophy).

Was there anyone who hypothesized that atheists “knew it all”?  Faith is
not an appropriate word to use, belief is, but true belief is what they are after,
not theoretical or factitious.  But of course you can ‘believe’ what you ‘want’ to. 
It is all to ones’ appetite.  If one could learn everything and recall it I believe
that would be maybe an… android?  Our beloved Data was such a semi-
sentient being.

One must be careful not to make a false god out of Nietzsche, as he himself
warned humans are so easily swayed to do, that is, make false gods.

It seems that the ‘mass’ of humans that populate the earth will never think and
act in unison.  I think at least the Kurds are a bit more safe under the auspices
of the USA than they were under Hussein.  How do you suppose to conquer the
darker side of human nature, realistically speaking.  I think some of that coffee
Leefeller uses could help.  Ugh, German coffee??? Oh my gawd, what an awful
thought.  Ptuey tuey, spittt spitt.

Reposting with italics corrected

Shenonymous said: For I submit even worse than Nietzsche pronounced, it would lead to a fatal insanity and no worthwhile existence of the mind that does not accept them on that qualified faith, which I will call true belief.

Leefeller suggests: Is it possible faith as She mentioned is only a religious suggestion, while belief could be on any subject and could belief really only be entrenched opinion?

These are fine definitions, and clarifies what Shenonymous is saying. i like it and I will expound:

Belief can be thought of as the orientation which is the prerequisite to action. Knowledge is merely awareness of cold ‘fact’. Belief settles the uncertain concept of self to a particular position, from which we view(understand) the equally uncertain universe, and that settling of both self and universe can justify an action without full knowledge of either the self or the universe or even the consequences of the action. It is the Leap of Belief.

Knowledge is made of particulars, and science tends to be most factual as it zeroes in on very specific particulars. The more precise the knowledge is, the less useful it tends to be to human actions. The more general it is, the more useful it is but it becomes less precise. Believe me, I know what i am talking about on this one. (i wish BR was here, he would know just what I mean)

Think of Quantum physics, where we can know ever more precisely a particle’s position, but then the particle action becomes more out of focus until it is a complete unknown. As we measure the particle action, we lose more sense of its exact position.

The more completely something is proven as pure fact, the more specialized, abstract, arcane, and (paradoxically) symbolic it becomes until it is almost useless. Thats what the dichotomy of Knowledge and Belief, originally set up by Shenonymous, has led me to propose to you all now.

Of course real people do not choose one or the other of the Belief/Knowledge dichotomy. It is common for Atheists to have strong Belief. It is for common for Christians to have strong Knowledge. 

My race track fable has another value. It demonstrates a tendency among Knowers, namely that not a lot gets done by them. For example, Truthdiggers tend to be “Knowers”. Not that they are right, but an awful lot of theorizing goes on and very little action is agreed to. Many Truthdiggers ‘know’ a great deal of facts but nothing comes of it. And every now and then anxiety is expressed by Truthdiggers along these lines: “the Believers(Christian conservatives) are influencing government(doing) far beyond their numbers.” Not that the Believers are better, i am just proposing that my fable does have a second type of validity.

Night Gaunt said: The main enemy to knowledge and then from that to truth is incompleteness. When do we know this? How long must we stand at the door to knowing more or even reaching the plateau of wisdom (the ultimate ability to understand and problem solve) if we don’t recognize we are at that very, metaphysical, if not metaphorical, door to it?

Stepping through that door is done with a gestalt of the world. Yes it is made up of what we hope are facts. Yes it is made up of experience, intuition, emotion… i guess everything… including incompleteness. There is an intermediary, or a referee of Knowledge which Night Gaunt is introducing: wisdom, which makes a whole from the multitude of smaller meanings.

Percieving the gestalt meaning is what wisdom does. Trusting one’s wisdom leads to belief. Belief leads to action. Without absolutely knowing ourselves or what is on the other side, we settle upon an orientation and then commit ourselves to action.

Somehow I suspect that Plato would have something to say about this. Perhaps we are closing in on his Universals. I dont know.

I didnt get back to the good stuff from previous posts because the recent ones caught my imagination.

I don’t drink much coffee myself, not since having so much of it in my early years. But if I get interested enough the endorphins flow and it works just as well, without the jitters. [Some hypothesized that consumption of such stimulants actually helped early humanity to climb out of the centuries old doldrums to start creating what we have today.]

True we can never have complete information of our surroundings but to survive we don’t need them. Indeed intelligence as we have it isn’t necessary to survival. In fact I would submit that in some ways it is a detriment to it. But then evolution is prone to experimentation. We need it for ourselves to survive—if we don’t destroy ourselves yet. One of the many hurdles any intelligent species must over come. Can we do it? Only time will tell that story.

I thought Gertrud Stein‘s connexion of insanity with what happened to Nietzsche was a logical stretch boardering on a logical fallacy. (Not enough data there.) I don’t know if he was diagnosed correctly but it happened after he tried to save a horse from being beaten to death. Maybe the old genius/madness line broke. I would be interested in any forensic analysis of his condition with the information of today.

If Ray Kurzweil is correct we will be able to increase not only our computing power but the information caches of our brains 1,000 fold and eventually greater. But that is just a possible future. Even Atheists can’t know it all so a certain amount of information is on here say or faith because otherwise we would be catatonic then die of starvation from lack of complete information before making a move. But then life is a risk. I know I can’t recall & learn everything but that doesn’t stop me from continuing my learning process til the day my brain ceases functioning.

Just as Nietzsche dismissed the invisible as inconsequential so must we at least concerning every day life. But most do not. Yet they still function so it isn’t an impairment to them. Being that we are a mass of people there can always be failures that do not constitute a problem for the majority. Until the majority thinks and acts. We have seen such and how destructive it is—Germany, Italy, Spain, & China are some of the more recent. We can add the empires of France, Belgium (Congo), UK and Dutch which did their own brand of misery to others subjugated by them. No one is safe such as Iraq under the domination of the USA. The darker side of human nature we need to conquer.

Let me make it clear, my early morning comment this morning on gestalt was posted during my first cup of coffee, which just happened to be French roast, so harmony was not to be. Now my second cup of coffee happened to be Itialan roast and I found She’s post most enlightening? 

One may conclude or form the belief (wisdom?)it really may come down to the coffiee’s roast?

Amusingly I have never discovered a German coffee I believed was worthy of pursuit. Do not know, is their a German Roast worthy for that final third cup?

“Perceiving the gestalt meaning is what wisdom does. Trusting one’s wisdom leads to belief. Belief leads to action. Without absolutely knowing ourselves or what is on the other side, we settle upon an orientation and then commit ourselves to action”. It is not clear to me who posted this, but no matter, I will comment on it anyway.

If this is true, it explains the existence of bigots and their comprehensive trusting of (using the word loosely here)  wisdom, which leads to belief.  It seems this defined use of wisdom leaves no room for those others.

Ignorance defined as wisdom comes to define belief, is this the completeness of gestalt?

Please take this argument in good spirit.  There is no intention of rancor or
unfriendliness.  But an argument is an argument is an argument, as Gertrude
Stein would say.  And we who differ have to follow it to its logical conclusions. 
So here is a three part invention.

THIS… is the entire quote:  Since truth is an evaluative condition for either
belief and knowledge, we might ?reasonably describe truth in Friedrich’s words,
as “irrefutable errors.”  I like ?Nietzsche’s view that “we have arranged for
ourselves a world in which we can ?live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, and
effects, motion and rest, form and ?content; without these articles of faith
nobody could endure life.  But that does ?not prove them, as the conditions of
life might include error.”  I believe this to a ?large degree describes my own
view, using the concept as faith not in any ?religious sense but in a
philosophical sense, that because nothing can be ?absolutely proved without
some qualifications that will determine what would ?be acceptable as proof,
faith is taken to give existence to such things as bodies, ?and geometric notions,
etc.  For I submit even worse than Nietzsche ?pronounced, it would lead to a
fatal insanity and no worthwhile existence of ?the mind that does not accept
them on that qualified faith, which I will call true ?belief.  As a matter of fact,
Nietzsche died in the mental condition of insanity.

I suppose part of a quote could be better than all of it if one is ‘trying’ to make
a point.  But the entire quote puts things into the more accurate perspective. 
And that…is the difference… between different kinds of belief.  Let me explain
for I think a turn has been made that leads in a peculiar direction, not mine.

This cannot help but be a lengthy exchange of thoughts, but I find it
fascinating and it has been an occupation I actively have engaged in literally for
years.  For me, it is a worthwhile way to spend one’s time. Because of the 4000
character limitation of TD submissions, I expect it will take a few posts to do it
justice, if justice to the subject is what we are after.  I think the best kind of
understanding occurs when a certain order of mind takes place, for working
one’s way through this kind of thinking is indeed like tramping through a
labyrinth.  It is not a simple matter.  I will ‘try’ to be as economical with words
as I can.  Abide with me if you have the stamina, if not, well so be it.

What we are talking about are matters that have been discussed for thousands
of years and are of a nature that are still being considered, such as what we are
doing here.  I think the reason closure on these topics has not happened
over that long run is due to the curious nature of the human mind and each
one, each and every one who has this character of curiosity, needs to build the
learned material anew into the complex of ideas, a kind of starting from
scratch, in order to learn and accept with their faculty of understanding what
these profound words mean.  Every so often a new discovery occurs to a mind
dealing with these notions and added definition happens to the words and a
whole new round of investigation begins because of the questions they
generate.  Such as it goes with understanding the words knowledge and belief.

2.
There are several ways to understand the word knowledge.  It is often first
defined to describe a state of mind called knowing, but saying that is not very
helpful since the word is being defined with itself and that is called a tautology,
which means a circular kind of reasoning, it reflects back on itself.  A further
look helps a bit when that state of mind says it is a clear perception of fact, or
could also be said it is a clear perception of truth, or it could also mean an
understanding of one’s duty.  Further, it is associated with the mental
condition called cognition where one is aware one knows.

Knowledge can also describe the entire collection of facts and facts are by
classic definition a certain quality of things that can be experienced.  The Latin
etymology is from the word factum, “to make or do.”  So facts are a “doing” and
have a permanent connection with knowledge.  In this sense, facts are actually
defined as reality, actuality, or truth.  One cannot separate these without losing
the depth of meaning there is to these words. 

If one wants to say there is such a thing as ‘false’ knowledge, that is a mistake. 
It is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.  It is really ignorance
and is factually or truthfully in a condition of wanting knowledge, existing in a
state of being uninformed.  It is a destitution of knowledge.  So saying false
knowledge is oxymoronic.  It is like saying something was a cruel kindness.

But, a confusion happens when we speak of beliefs as there are two kinds of
belief.  There is true belief and false beliefs and those are states of mind called
convictions or judgments about matters experienced and enters into the realm
of evaluation.  True belief is associated with knowledge.  The other kind of
belief is imaginary belief or theoretical belief.  Theoretical belief is in contrast
to true belief in that in its state of being theoretical it is unsubstantiated.  This
is the kind of belief that is associated with faith.  Faith is an artificial belief also
called factitious.

OzarkMichael says, “Belief can be thought of as the orientation, which is the
prerequisite to action.”  Most likely before one could take any action, one does
logically need to have some sort of belief about reality, that the action could
actually take place.  He then relegates knowledge to a “merely” status, a
“coldness” about it, when in fact, knowledge provides as much warmth to one’s
beliefs as is at all possible.  He uses the idea of belief to locate a self that is
itself an uncertain concept.  He takes great leaps besides the leap of belief
when he takes that view of the uncertain understanding of the self to equal the
uncertainty of the universe.  There is a vastness between self and universe that
needs traversed before one can authentically combine them like adjacent
triangles (use any congruent figures you like, it is merely a vehicle for imagery). 
He then uses this association between self and universe to construct a
justification for action out of ignorance and this I think he is calling the Leap of
Belief. He moves too quickly, like Achilles, to what is the self and what is the
universe.  And I ask for the sake of clarity that he define both those terms
before linking them with chains as he does.

3.
Yes, OM seems to say rightly that knowledge is made of particulars, if he is
talking about the whole of knowledge as I previously discussed.  And science
does tend to depend for its existence on facts. That is its essential nature, how
science is defined.  But when he says science ‘zeros in on very specific
particulars’ and that the more precise the knowledge is, the less useful it tends
to be to human actions” is quite wrong.  On what tissue of evidence does he
even say that? It is kind of preposterous.  He thinks, (and oddly thinks BR549
would agree with him) that the more general knowledge is, that it is more
useful even though as it does it becomes less precise.  M’thinks he needs to
explain this whole thesis more lucidly because he goes on to exacerbate his
theory by saying the ‘more completely something is proven as pure fact, the
more specialized, abstract, arcane, and (paradoxically) symbolic it becomes
until it is almost useless”!  This is almost too funny to contemplate, but in good
spirit we shall!  Useless to whom?  To those who rely on beliefs?  Indeed!  OM
makes such alliances that have no substantial justification.  He would have us
believe (and I say such is the weakness of theoretical belief) that the more facts
one has the less one could know.  Amazing bit of claptrap if I ever read such. 
And that truly is the dichotomy of Knowledge and Belief. 

Now what could he also mean by this? “Of course real people do not choose
one or the other of the Belief/Knowledge dichotomy.”  Who are the not “real
people?”  Yes of course atheists have strong belief, and that strong belief is
that all claims must be justified with knowledge.  But I have doubts that the
religious have strong knowledge. I would say that the religious, and I do not
specify any particular religion as all religions are the same in that they have
factitious beliefs, theoretical beliefs but knowledge, emphatically, No!  It would
be demanded that they give that so-called claimed knowledge to the public. 
For knowledge is based on fact even if provisional always with an open mind
that more knowledge is discovered that clarifies our perceptions. 

It is getting very late and tomorrow is a workday.  I want to talk about the rest
of OM’s comments especially his perceptions of the Knowers as I think there is
a problem there as well. And I do hope OM takes my argument not as having
any personal hostility.  I think he knows how I enjoy investigation. We must
follow an argument wherever it leads, no?  This is a perfect moment when
Leefeller could leap in and make some enjoyable comments, some of his usual
levity.  Yes, yes, I know this got very long (but not like Leefeller’s long of tooth
as he so often talks about!)  Long of breath would be more like it and I am out
of it at the moment, much to your relief, I am sure.
Good night as Night-Gaunt would say.

Shenonymous said:For I submit even worse than Nietzsche pronounced, it would lead to a fatal insanity and no worthwhile existence of the mind that does not accept them on that qualified faith, which I will call true belief.

So glad you were entertained Leefeller.  I think saying Krishna could sound like
one has an allergy which might present a problem when confronted with the
top god’s 10,000 fierce forms.  If the sneeze were huge enough it could blow
Him right out of the water.

And Arjuna, I don’t know what to say about him.  He ended up not having a
mind of his own, was wowed by unearthly power, so if he had sneezed when
Krishna offered his destroyer of worlds form maybe he could have stopped the
inevitable.  He missed a great opportunity.

If this story is an allegory then we have to see what does the war really
represent, what do the warring families represent, what really is Krishna, and
the questions of the young prince (as you can see I’m trying to keep those
sneezable names to a minimum here), and finally, of course, decide if the
advice is good.

Believing things and knowing things are two different ways of dealing with
reality, don’t both of you gents think?  I think that was my point, but you both
seem to have missed it.  By definition, a bigot does use inbred stereotypes,
they are trapped in their own self-imposed closed system and instead of
dealing with reality, they react to their own misperceptions.  Furthermore, don’t
you think there is a difference between two other ways of responding to the
actions of the world, the way of trying (making an effort) and the way of doing
(doing).  If one only tries, or makes an attempt, then there is the possibility of
failure.  If one takes the determined path of doing, then performance is the
action and failure is out of the picture.  The action is taken. 
Stereotypical/prejudicial pronouncements is a delusional talking to oneself. 
Without stepping out of that abyss, there is no way to verify one’s beliefs.  It is
a self-imposed damnation.

I see, OzarkMIchael, where you split up the giant metaphor into two, the
Fascist Giant and the Reduction Giant.  It was never said explicitly, however,
when the Fascist Giant made his appearance.  But no matter for the lapse.  I
don’t agree that the power of Reduction is equal to any other power that is
summonable.  The power of an integrated whole cannot be ripped apart but
would drown reductionists in their own paltry sweat of looking at minutia
rather than the important whole. 

OM, you said “I don’t care who says these things, it is a step to fascism. It is a
moral Reduction, whereby complexity is made very simple, which appeals to
and confirms prejudice.”  Now either the two aspects are of one giant, or there
are two giants.  It is difficult to respond if you have bifurcated the one who
decimates truthseekers.  It seems that you did equate the idea of reduction
with the idea of fascism.  A reductionist who doesn’t decimate may just be
looking for seeds of truth and in that case you cannot honestly call the giant
evil as was implied.  Please clarify one or two?

Leefeller asks “Loving something to die for is supposed to make a point in this
story?”  I don’t think passionate bodily love is what is meant here.  This
consuming love is an unstoppable love for truth.  No tails here to chase,
Leefeller, only tales, tall or otherwise.

OM also says, “An honest person…who persists in applying Reduction to the
Other camp, will eventually apply Reduction to herself [oneself] just as
thoroughly. This is a twist on the idea of reduction that had been presented in
the form of a demon’s destruction (that is quite different than reduction).  In
this case [she] will get to the nitty gritty of what-is-the-truth kind of
reduction, the truth itself always annihilates ignorance and falsehood.  Then
the reduction of self-reflection to see if there is any residual ignorance or false
beliefs hanging around. That is the goal, always the goal.

By the way, OM rather slinks out of saying what is the only way out for the
woman and her cherished leaders?  He set his trap, just make note of it.

i would like to offer that the Reduction monster and the Fascist monster are quite distinct creatures. I dont want to even imply that anyone who performs Reduction is a fascist.

Shenonymous said: I often think that in giving a thing a sharp definition itself will give the answers
on how to deal with it.

Leefeller responded: Could it be suggested, a bigot by using inbred stereotypes, may believe they are utilizing very sharp definiteness of things and how to deal with them?

As usual Leefeller spots a problem. One which i too worry about since he called it to mind.

I have no doubt Shenonymous can clarify, because there has to be a difference between making an effort to be define things correctly and stereotyped/prejudicial pronouncements.

She mentioned,

“I often think that in giving a thing a sharp definition itself will give the answers
on how to deal with it”.

She, though I think I may agree with the premise and enjoyed the story, what seems most troubling for me, are the names of the characters. Names sounding like someone sneezing make it much harder to follow a storyline.  It would be nice, as years ago when I used to be quite holy not just in the head. My personal bible was easier to read after I edited it and changed everyone’s name to Bob or Alice.

Sometimes I have the same problem watching a movie, the male and female characters all seem to look like twins or clones, this may be why I find some movies impossible or harder to follow? 

But as one knows, the light bulb joke never made sense to me either.

Could it be suggested, a bigot by using inbred stereotypes, may believe they are utilizing very sharp definiteness of things and how to deal with them?

Quite true, OM.  To war would be incompatible to seek truth.  The warring
camps cannot both have The Truth.  They each have a biased perception of
truth and call it The Truth.  That is what originally leads them to war against
each other, that is their moral justification.  The actions of the raging fascist
reductionist that destroys one view of the truth, then in its blind thirst for
blood, shifts attention in an attempt to destroy the other view of truth does not
resolve the problem of what is The Truth that existed before the frenzy of
destruction.  The reason for the war between the two camps still exists,
regardless of whether one side was destroyed or not, or even if both sides are
destroyed.  Moreover, fascism is a third vessel of beliefs of truth.  Fascism’s
truth is tyranny.  Setting that aside, and returning to the two competing and
incompatible views of truth there will always be such a war unless the light of
reason disperses the points of discord.  Only one with a torch can shine the
beacon towards truth.  Since The Truth cannot change, cannot move, then
movement by those seeking it is the imperative. 

The revolt against the tyranny of fascism would have to be met with greater
force than it has.  Tyrants do not negotiate.  Fascism is a socio-political
phenomenon.  It does not rely solely on military or police methods of
repression, it recruits from certain groups of people who have little hope for a
decent life, people who are despairing in one way or another, the wretched. 
The fascist state of mind taps into this desperation and collects the resources
through the action of terror and killing of in one way or another all opposition. 
It is said that prevention of the disease of fascism is the hindsight cure, like
some doctors must be reminded to work towards a prevention of diseases
instead of their focus on cures from which they make their living.  Looking, if
we have to with a magnifying glass, for politicians who help human society and
those who expose the irrational motives and hubris of the kind of politics that
causes harm in the society is what must be done.  Integrity must become the
beacon, the fire that burns the bridges that tyrants would cross while making
sure passage is given to the truthseekers, the truthtellers, and the truthactors. 
If it is irrational fascism that hinders truth, then we need to start saying what
are the ways to get rid of it then do it, and preserve our own integrity while
doing it.

I often think that in giving a thing a sharp definition itself will give the answers
on how to deal with it.

In a room of greedy people they will each want to get as much as they can and care little for the long term outcome. They do not have to work together to get to the same end. However if they are using greed to topple one organization in order to build another in its place then this is one of those ways. Only a few need know the true reasons for letting loose the dogs of greed and self destruction. Does that help clarify it for you?

oops. my last post had a part cut out…

both sides have their ‘leaders’, which in the fairy tale does confuse things because the leaders represent principles, which attempt to represent the truth. The problem with my story is that the ‘leaders’ in the fairy tale are triabl leaders, obviously warlike, but a persons truthseeking is not a warlike endeavor.

Such are the limitations of allegories.

Shenonymous said: What the woman does she does not only because she is loyal and values the
leaders of her camp, it would be because she values seeking the truth more. But if they were not truthseekers, then she might have to re-evaluate their worth.

I imagined the story with a high degree of truth seeking equivalent on both sides. Their moral justification for struggle is equal as well. I didnt mean to stipulate that one side is better than the other, both sides have their ‘leaders’, which in the fairy tale does confuse things because the leaders
Night Gaunt said:  Ozark Michael I too am one that says a long term conspiracy by the oligarchs and theocrats want control of this country. Unlike Glenn Beck who says it is the “Progressives” who have next to no power or money are doing it. Now it it isn’t organized and it is just a group of like minded people following the same philosophy then we are doomed as a country not to large scale corporate theocratic dictatorship but a fragmentation and neo-barbarism if we continue on our present course. So I too am guilty in your eyes.

In that case I might be guilty too.

Unlike Glenn Beck who says it is the “Progressives” who have next to no power or money are doing it.

There are certain centers of power where Progressives are almost omnipotent, others where they are not powerful. Regardless of that, I do not thing they are intentionally ruining the country.

But first I want to understand you better. When you say Now it it isn’t organized and it is just a group of like minded people following the same philosophy…

I think you mean “if the theocrats and oligarchs arent organized and it is just a group of like minded people following the same philosophy…”

Am i reading you correctly?

Appreciating the allusion to the Star Trek episode that hooked me as a devoted
fan, I offer the following as briefly as I can make it:  I will use as an allegory for
the drama on the forum at the moment one that involves a perception of duty,
loyalty, rightness of action, and truth in response to what you said.  In the
Bhagavad-gita, from a long-time family feud, a war developed between the
sons and cousins of a king.  The cause of this feud is strikingly similar to that
in the Bible about Isaac and Ishmael when the “rightful” heir to the throne is
passed over in favor of a younger brother. The lord, Krishna, has a preference
for the cousins, especially the Prince of that side of the family, Arjuna, who is
about to join the conflict.  When Arjuna sees that his family, his teacher, and
his friends will soon be wiped out because the sons of the king are in a death-
dealing formation, he is distraught and requests that Krishna intercede.  He
drops his bow and arrows and makes a decision not to fight.  He presents the
argument for that refusal as fearing the sinful reactions of killing.  Krishna
analytically explains that fighting in His name is transcendental and brings no
sinful culpability. The purpose of the Vedas’ is to gradually elevate souls to
divine consciousness.  He encourages Arjuna to stay fixed and ignore his
mind’s desires. This explanation only confuses Arguna, as it glorified
intelligence and karma.  He asks why he is encouraged to fight if intelligence is
better than warring? 

After a long bout of deconstruction, or reduction, of the state of Brahman,
Krishna reveals the truth of his all-pervading Universal Form, his 10,000 faces
and all-expansive form. His fierce omniscience and omnipotence is exposed. 
Arjuna sees that all the soldiers on both sides die within that world.  Krishna
explains that His form as Time, is destroyer of the world.  He cajoles Arjuna to
become the instrument of this premonition.  Krishna states that devotees,
worshippers must engage in His service and faithfully follow the path of
purification that will lead to the goal of realizing ones’ eternal subordination to
the God and achieve the supreme destination.  Becoming free from material
entanglement is a result of that path. He tells of the forces that prevents the
goal to be elevated to Brahma and release from the transmigration of the soul
through a life of austerity, asceticism and devotional practice.  After all is said
and done by Krishna’s explanations, Arjuna is led to fight.  Krisha can only be
known by surrendering to Him in devotional service to free oneself from karma,
no sin will be incurred.  Contrary to some apologetics of dharmic war, the
encouragement of Arjuna to fight even in the name of dharma (supposedly
dharma justifies killing) is equivalent to jihad that encourages the flow of blood
in the name of Allah and to the Roman Catholic Pope Urban II’s call for
Crusades in the name of the Christian God.

The connection: Krishna is like the doomsday machine, showing the power of
his terrible 10,000 forms. There is no moral development for Arjuna except to
be able to use Krishna’s call as justification. He becomes a nuclear weapon to
annihilate the passion of the enemy.

It is self-evident that our being can only perceive what is given in our physical
being to sense the world, that nurture gives the other part, not only how we
see the world (Nature) but partly influences what is wanted to see.  I do not
hold that it is all predetermined, however.  Agreed that Nature (that is, the
Universe) is too large for humans within the scope of their limited physical
being and too large to intuit its vastness. Just as Arjuna’s mind capitulated in
the face of Krishna’s 10,000 forms, human brains would shut down in the
complete face of the Cosmos.

What then is the solution? Must we not still resist fascism wherever it occurs,
even in the likes of a Krishna?

First the giant story reminds me of the original Star Trek episode aptly named “Doomsday Machine” about a war that happened uncounted years ago in another galaxy when a weapon so powerful it destroyed both sides in the war and being self maintaining continued on its quest to destroy and “eat” worlds. It made it into our galaxy an its feeding continued. It took a nuclear device—our doomsday machine to stop it. “Probably the first time such a device has been used for constructive purposes.”-Capt. Kirk. The folly of beings with the technical know how but not the moral development to not fight wars nor build such suicidal devices in the first place. (Species that is.)

Shenonymous concerning your perception dilemma choices you raise. I would say that we can only perceive that which 1) what senses we are born with, 2) how we are raised to see and 3) what we want to see of all of Nature. Even things we don’t see but are there can hurt or help us. Nature is just too large fo us to see it all, literally. Our brains would shut down if the full impact of the Cosmic All impacted us sans narrowed perceptions. Does that help?

Ozark Michael I too am one that says a long term conspiracy by the oligarchs and theocrats want control of this country. Unlike Glenn Beck who says it is the “Progressives” who have next to no power or money are doing it. Now it it isn’t organized and it is just a group of like minded people following the same philosophy then we are doomed as a country not to large scale corporate theocratic dictatorship but a fragmentation and neo-barbarism if we continue on our present course. So I too am guilty in your eyes. Me I just want to slim down the USA global infrastructure for an Empire by about 90%. Something Glenn Beck seems to support as he does the same lassiaze fair freedoms of corporations and business in general to run amok. I don’t see that as healthy.

Sorry, an afterthought addendum, because something did not sit right.

Often what we take as “ordinary and valuable” can also be dangerous (i.e., such
as enlisting a demon giant that was not anticipated to turn against his
recruiters, that is, a miscalculation of fascism to commit mutiny), therefore
such recruitment always needs to be “critically questioned or at least a
background check done for any considered employee.  Some would say it is
prudent but it might better be called curiosity, the intense hunger to know that
is even more solemn than the pursuit of truth.  To have that kind of hunger
requires one be ignorant and at the same time have a fervent desire to give up
that ignorance.  It is said that curiosity seeks to annihilate itself and no
curiosity can go peacefully unanswered. 

Therefore, applied to OM’s story, there is a small nagging problem of
inconsistency: we are not sure which camp harbors the truth seekers, the
enemy camp or the winning one?  Rereading his few posts it seems to me he
left it ambiguous and the ramifications would be importantly different for
whichever it is. 

If the enemy leaders are truthseekers, then those who won the war (the
woman’s camp leaders) are also destroyers of seekers of truth and even were
so before the giant does the dastardly reductionist deed.

But because the fascist turns against the “friendly” camp leaders, must we
assume they are truthseekers too?  I don’t think we can go on to conclude until
that fuzzy business is set right.  Why?

What the woman does she does not only because she is loyal and values the
leaders of her camp, it would be because she values seeking the truth more. 
But if they were not truthseekers, then she might have to re-evaluate their
worth.  She might have to burn the bridge and ride her lion out of town.  And in
that case, she would not look back.

I am not sure any of you will understand this, but here goes anyway.  Many
people view the world as an objective place where the perceiver and the
perceived both exist perhaps not completely independent of each other but as
separate entities.  Others see the world as subjective and possibly as a human
construction. Regarding the morality of actions, it has to be asked if these exist
as an objective part of the world or are they something that is imposed on
whatever world is perceived?  If the world is seen as an objectivity, then and
only then can an ideal be pursued.  If they are not seen as having an external
status, then certain implications follow.  We are here talking about ethics and
morals.  If ethical subjectivism is the status of the world, then what is proposed
is a moral nihilism, and that all moral utterances are false since they have no
objective meaning. 

Using the reductionist model, elements of a complex system are isolated then
used to construct a path of action.  This is in the face of properties of complex
systems that may not in fact be reducible.  Reducing things or states of mind
to what amounts to what has been said ‘to something less than meets the eye,’
might engender action on a fragmented level but miss the “bigger” dynamic
picture.  In other words, skip by the truth.  In the case of the decision to burn
or not to burn the bridge, it seems to be a matter of two ways of human
experience, behavioral and cognitive:  What is apprehended as the problem,
and what is done to solve the problem.

Reductionism can be interpreted as analyzing consciousness in terms of
beliefs.  Reduced to its elements, we are conscious of the parts of the story (but
a caution - we do not have all the parts and cannot reduce without
fictionalizing what is missing):  The two warring factions (we are not given the
reason for the war, nor who is the perpetrator or who is the defender); the
giant who turns on its employers (offered as a fascist element because there is
no reasoning to be done to stop the oppressive violence this demon represents,
or it as an agent of reductionism); the hasty retreat by the leaders of the
winning side (by the way no mention is made that the giant wiped out the
winning side’s army, only that he pursued the camp leaders); the bridge; the
woman; her cognitive and emotional states.  With these as the reduced
parameters.

Having all the parts then, after some have offered their views as to the meaning
of the tale, OM proceeds to give his meaning.  Once the story is out, however,
does he still “own” it and wouldn’t his explication just become one of the many
offered?  He admits as much. 

If one is a subjectivist, there is a denial that there is a single true morality and
an insistence that moral judgments simply report or express emotional
attitudes.  But then one cannot regard their moral opinions as better or more
correct than anyone else’s.  If this is true, shouldn’t we be humble and having
no reason to interfere with the moral beliefs and practices of others?  What
would be the implications of that?

The subtle, complex and harmful effects of power relations that shape and
control human interaction is not easily resolved by simply reducing the whole
into its parts.  Remember the old adage the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts. The imperative to “reduce everything to power” is “seriously deficient”
because it obscures our understanding of the conditions for human ethical
action.

Leefeller said: Though my comments on rehashed Universal Morality would not have been different than before and whatever I stated before still holds true today.  Only I have forgotten what was said before?

You can bet it went something like this…

Leefeller used humor and absurdity to point out the absurdity of what OzarkMichael said, causing a belly laugh from Shenonymous.

Yeah, that what it was. But it was easy to describe because that what usually happens. Although I left out the fact that it usually makes me laugh too.

Seriously, what thread was it under? Because I dont even remember what i said in the first place. Maybe we dont want to go there.

Shenonymous said: The hero in this story has to be a woman since very few men can see beyond their own outrageous aboriginal need for power.

The women also have to live with the consequences, the mother mourns her son, the widow mourns her husband. Women have to figure out what to do, how to make sense of it all.

You see, the finger-painters would use fascism to destroy fascism which is madly counterproductive.

Well said. And anyone who finds themselves on the bridge must their stand.

Setting aside the Fascist Giant, and back to the Reduction Giant, you do realize Shenonymous that the Reduction power is equal to any power you can summon?

I mean it is not some outside force you can vanquish, it is your own intelligence working against you. Think of it this way: the whole story is something that happens inside a person, and no other person is really effected by it.

What ought to be done is the ancient dilemma and if what ought to be done is
ever done, there would be no history of war.  Once a wrong thing is done, a
cascade of further wrongs occur because fundamentally there is only error
upon error that builds the framework.  No further premise can save it. 

What would have been the moral thing to do, it is true, is to not have a war but
to negotiate disagreements in a civilized manner.  Dialogue instead of
savagery.  Given that was not possible, the next best thing was the proper
thing to do. 

In Hinduism, Devi is the supreme mother goddess of all creation by whom all
things are created.  That is a little better arrangement than the Judaic terrible
swift god in my female mind.  Durga, is a most splendid manifestation of Devi. 
Virginal, maybe in mind if not in body, and since this is all a mental trip, I will
go with virginal mind, contains within her the power of all the gods in the
Hindu pantheon. She is the invincible power of Nature who triumphs over those
who seek to subjugate her.  I have often noted that Nature will triumph no
matter what mankind does to itself and to inflict scars on the earth.  She is a
warrior goddess who destroys demons (which I see as dauntlessly exposing
self-deceptions).  Her companion or vahana is a lion that is a means of
transport as well as a weapon.  Demons are often posed in the form of giants
who through sheer force, fascistic as in storm troopers, blindly intend to
conquer and devour everything in its path. Apply the metaphor however you
choose.

(In Hindu mythology women were often employed as bodyguards of a king. 
This is still a androcentric description of the world and androcracy is still the
unmitigated contemptuous political format for power.) 

Where does it say in the story the woman has “blind love for the noble or
ignoble leaders?”  Nor does it say she was consumed by self-sacrifice.  She is
most calculating and is spiritedly sober.  She recognizes all the negatives and
ramifications that could happen!  It is too easy to change the dynamics of a
story to display one’s own code of human interaction.  Re-writing a story
simply presents a different story, it does not resolve the original.  Since we
have to finish the story ourselves in spite of the one offered by OM, as that was
his original invitation, I will rewrite mine with the Hindu perspective of Durga. 
She will ride her vahana across the bridge and she will destroy the demon giant
by showing it for what it is, the all-eating voracious fascist.  You see, the
finger-painters would use fascism to destroy fascism which is madly
counterproductive.  The hero in this story has to be a woman since very few
men can see beyond their own outrageous aboriginal need for power. 

The only way to get rid of fascism is to not fear it.  To boldly confront it and
expose its lies and show the utter erosion of humanity it causes.  Send a lion to
tear out its throat.  A little less violent is the old adage that if the monster is
not fed, it will starve. Not feeding fascism will cause it to suffer a fatality.

OM, my last post would have been quite different if I had seen yours your last post first. So it goes. It seems I was talking the same time as you. Oh well!

Though my comments on rehashed Universal Morality would not have been different than before and whatever I stated before still holds true today.  Only I have forgotten what was said before?

Universal morality!  For some reason. this seems like ground hog day all over again.

Loving something to die for is supposed to make a point in this story? Accordingly. This story the lady on the bridge has a fawning (Blind fawning?) love for ignoble or noble leaders. As the story goes, she as (She) would let the leaders over the bridge and then touch it. End of Story! Though associating (She) as consumed in blind love seems a stretch, but only she can say so.  I would never describe an another as a metaphor and expect to sit comfortably, but you already know that OM! - Right?

As I attempted by suggestion before, making or describing the bridge person with the touch as a women does seem a tad sexist. Though under sexist assumption one is supposed to assume the leaders are not female?

Fractured fairy tails are usually like that!

It should be noted, for some reason I always have found fault with prescribed plots in many tall tails,  Skeptic me seems ever present?

First, the story as a commentary on war is valid. Living by the sword and unleashing destruction on the Other is a pretty good way to initiate our own destruction. Historically, the feminine only makes its appearance in the crisis of destruction, since she doesnt really have a say until that point. In other words, he makes the decision, but then she suffers the consequences and deals with the moral questions that he should have thought of in the first place.

BR and Leefeller(in his own cryptic and humorous way) take the stand that the paradigm needs to be changed and the literal story can be broken for that goal. Who can argue with that? No one.

But Night-Gaunt and Anarcissie underscore the moral tension which was my intended point of the story.

If there is a lesson from all this, it is the moral understanding that we shouldnt turn the Giant loose in the first place.

I would like to explain another layer of the story. It came to me while I was watching Glen Beck. Why do i watch Glenn Beck? Because people accused me of doing so and I wanted to see why.

When I hear Glenn Beck claim that Obama is ruining the country, that to me is normal political talk which we hear from Left and Right about the Other side all the time. Much of that is interesting and entertaining. There are facts presented that the news media does not want to deal with.

But then Glenn Beck says that Obama is ruining the country on purpose. This might not seem like much of a difference to you, but to me it is crossing a line.

One of Hitler’s favorite riffs was that Germany was ruined on purpose by the elites, by money interests, and by Jews.

We have seen a certain finger-painter on these forums who has made similar charges againt “conservative right wing extremist” etc. The idea she pushes is that there was and is a plan to ruin things on purpose.

I dont care who says these things, it is a step to fascism. It is a moral Reduction, whereby complexity is made very simple, which appeals to and confirms prejudice.  Hmmm. What am I trying to do here? I guess I am doing a Reduction on Reduction.

In my story we have the fascism turned lose, personified by the Giant. Now when giants go after the ‘enemy camp’, there is a tendency for the friendly side to encourage the ‘deserved’ discomforture of the ‘enemy camp’. The friendly side might not endorse the Giant, but they figure they can benefit from the Giant’s action and control it later.

Of course the problem occurs if the Giant succeeds, for afterwards he will then turn upon those who ‘only observed’ his actions and didnt fight by his side.

Certainly you understand the threat from the Right. But now you understand the threat from the Left thanks to our our finger-painter, Martha/Thomas.

Before Martha/Thomas could ever implement her hoped for destruction(and by that I mean her famous bullets in every head till none wiggle) of “Republican Extremists”, she was already looking over her shoulder at her friendly camp, and muttering threats against you all.

Which was certainly not helpful to her cause. But trust me, there are much smarter Giants running around, who would never betray that inner ferocity to their ‘friends’ so early in the game.

It does no good at all to imagine that the Giant lives only on the Right. Thanks to Martha/Thomas, we have learned that the Giant resides on the Left too.

Now the trick is to recognize such people while they are attacking your enemy. Dont wait until they come after you.

One last thing. When i think of the bridge, and the Giant attempting to cross it, I imagine a scene from the movie “Lord of the Rings”. Only instead of Gandalf I see Eowyn on the bridge.

She would stand between Good and Evil. She would threaten Evil with, “You shall not pass!” and make good on the threat. She has it in her.

But let us not go through the Mines of Moria in the first place.

Well I don’t like your viewpoint.  I don’t like to give up a good story, BR549, and
it is not a ‘fact’ that they, the beloved leaders of the woman’s camp were the
cause of the war in the first place.  No facts are given.  “each side so convinced
of their unique viewpoint that they forget they have the same father.”  Your
take on it.  Perhaps, but does it matter whether Abraham was their father and
they disagreed?  Are not all men brothers?  According to some beliefs they are. 
Besides Isaac and Ishmael had different mothers.  The mothers hated each
other.  And probably had a right to if anyone did on account of Abraham’s male
hubris and betrayal of his wife.  Nothing has changed over the millennia.
According to that story, there was enmity from Ishmael toward his little brother
after the father, Abraham, showed favor for the younger one.  This is a
dreadful story to explain the “father” of the Jews and the “father” of the Arabs,
that supposedly gave birth to the longest feud in history.  And apparently the
deity preferred Isaac.  So it goes beyond the preference of the two brothers’
father. 

But all stories of war are not variations of the Abrahamic sins. It is not the
paradigm of all war.  War existed before the bible and will exist after it!  The
reasons for war are greed and power and the laws of survival says it is genetic.

The giant was only the instrument of the leaders that sent him to kill.  The ‘fact’
of the story, as given, the first camp defeated the second one by use of their
weapon, the giant.  Devil?  Was there a devil in the story?  I had already
suggested a peace talk, and had no takers.  Oh well.  But notice, peace is not
forever, not for any war, and is only temporary with the ‘defeat’ of an enemy.
Take a look at the timeline of the history of war.  The one online only goes
back as far as 200 BC, but I think that is indication enough that not one war
ended in a forever lasting peace.  BR549, you are a man, explain that please.

This seems to have the scent of the mythological tales of Gog and Magog who
have various eschatologies according to various ethnic and religious traditions. 
The British version is atrocious towards women. 

The words Gog and Magog are associated with fire in the Ahmadiyya culture
and fight all their battles with fire, their weapon of choice.  There is a 50s scifi
movie, Gog, where the robot (read giant) turns on its (anthropomorphized as
male) creators (the winning tribe) and they are saved by Magog, the female
incarnation of the robot.  Hmmmm Now that is an interesting parallel to “our”
story.

Shenonymous, January 22 at 10:49 am

“No no no no no BR549.  She must save the leaders (after all they did defeat the
enemy ..... ).” Actually, the GIANT defeated the enemy, but weren’t the men of
the attacking camp in cahoots with the devil?

And as Anarcissie had stated, “In fact, they might have been the cause of the
war in the first place.” Indeed, all the fear mongers did was to murder by
proxie another camp that didn’t agree with the first camps viewpoint, and
rather than figure out a way to coexist, they figured that snuffing them out was
the only solution. It’s like the Ishmael and Isaac scenario all over again, each
side so convinced of their unique viewpoint that they forget they have the same
father.

So, the heroine of the day, deciding that she has no time for the Morton’s Fork
that the men who can’t fight their own battles have put before her, decides to
go back to the camp and start a new beginning with the rest of the camp’s
population.

I guess the problem I was having with this story was that I envisioned a throng
of arm-chair warhawks all ready to kill other people, as long as someone else
was doing the killing. That’s the problem with our foreign policy.

But back to the story. Shenonymous, maybe it’s just late and and I’m just not
seeing your viewpoint.

First, any attempt to ‘solve’ the story is fine by me. Its only a story.

But most of you have guessed it is insoluable and that is what i meant for it to be.

The first meaning of the story: The giant who lays waste to the enemy camp and kills its leaders is “Reduction”. The ‘leaders’ are anyone’s attempt to ascertain Truth. The giant reduces the attempt to a base motivation devoid of any search for truth or apprehension of truth.

After sending the giant to the opposing camp, there is nothing to prevent the giant doing the same to one’s own camp. An honest person, which i believe Shenonymous is, who persists in applying Reduction to the Other camp, will eventually apply Reduction to herself just as thoroughly.

The woman on the bridge is our beloved Shenonymous. She does love her ‘leaders’, and she would die for them. In fact, that is what makes the story work so well.

Shenonymous would rescue her own principles from the Reduction. Read her old posts. She capitalizes ‘Truth’ for a reason. And she already indicated before i made up the story that she wants to reserve some principles from Reduction. That is what made me think up the story!

Our remarkable, brave, and wise Shenonymous steps onto the bridge. The principles must be rescued…

With one eye on the Reduction, Shenonymous said: There are certain conclusions every human with a discerning mind can easily recognize, certain universal morals;

Ah, but the Reduction cares nothing for ‘discerning minds’, which is how all people always refer to themselves. That is no defense.

And universal morals? Reduction exists to collapse principles into a base mechanism. The baser and more mechanistic the better. It isnt pretty. All that work, reading and thinking…  evaporated.

One cannot send the giant upon the ‘Other’ and then be exempt yourself. I dont recommend it and i wouldnt do it. Or I would do it slowly.

This was one of my thoughts as i wrote the story. There is another meaning which i will address later.

It has been crazy at work, but weekend is coming and hopefully i can catch up.

While the words are synonymous, it seems to me rescue has a more active
invested emotional interest to deliver from destruction than save, if you really
prefer to stay within the confines of what was said, that is.  Again, what was
said is, ““She loved the leaders, and she wanted to rescue them from
destruction.”

Yeah, Leefeller did make up another possible world, he is creative like that and
I have learned to enjoy it, and look for it really, and can even count on it, but
we all know the story so no foul no harm.  In his case, I am never AR.

But on the other hand…
The two verbs mean to free a person(s) or thing from danger, immanent or long
term, something evil, confinement from incarceration, or slavery.

Save is the more general term: The malaria vaccine has saved many lives. Law
enforcement investigators save the public from being scammed.  I just don’t
think salvation is part of this, but maybe it is.  Shenonymous does not have
that in her repertoire.  OM will have to elaborate.

Rescue, however, usually implies saving from immediate harm or danger by
direct action: rescue a rare manuscript from a fire or from destruction by a
threatening giant.

Some might think we are having a moot argument but if we want to get the
meaning of OM’s moral story, we should be tight in defintions.  I know I know,
it is always an AR kind of thing for me.  Many have called me that but they may
not know how I try to be AR (except in the case of Leefeller, as I said).

Shenonymous—I regarded “wanted to save” as an illustration of “loved”, rather than an expansion of the concept.

In dealing with the story, I preferred to stay within the confines of what was given.  If we can just make up any old additional story material, we can say anything, like “The woman went and found another giant to fight the first one,” or “The woman grew wings and flew up and dropped a heavy stone on the giant.”  This sort of thing is fun, but to me it’s a different game, lacking the moral tension of the original version.

One more thing before have to go for a while:

Rereading the fable, Anarcissie (The story doesn’t say that.  It says only that she
loved them.)  Not true.  The story does indeed have her attempt to save them: 
“She loved the leaders, and she wanted to rescue them from destruction.”

Is est ut innotesco

No, the story doesn’t say it explicitly, but it is implied that if one loves
someone, one would do all one can to save that beloved in the face of danger. 
I think it is part of the definition of love.  Should we now go into the
nature of the emotion called love?  As a hypothetical construct, a certain
investment of value is in one of the top drawers of love and colors all thinking,
sometimes even blindingly, some call it mad passion. 

I really like Leefeller’s solution, for if the theory of love holds, then one of the
leaders would sacrifice himself for the many.  EXCEPT for the sacrificed Virgins. 
Why is it women are always the most handy sacrifices for viagra-drunk men? 
Some blowup dolls would do the trick,they could also be in the shape of
sheep, as i’ve heard…. ahem… 

Remember I said it would be a tricky solution and while the giant is thirsty for
blood, he could also be diverted by more entertaining relief (the Leefeller
tentative theory, tentative until proven).  Or we could throw up a VR screen like
the Sword of Damocles (or for some, the Sword of Tito) and project the pursued
leaders as making a hasty retreat, and lead the giant over the precipice!  There
are no unfortunate Virgins, EVER!  Get it Leefeller!  And so it never goes!  Oops,
I just dropped my coin over the precipice!

Leefeller condensed version of leaders most Noble.

Actually the leaders were much further ahead of the Giant then they had thought,  for the Giant had stumbled over an abandoned large black automobile with red flags mounted on the fenders. So the leaders were able to catch their breath from running - just on the other side of the bridge.

The women was one of reason, so she yelled out to the leaders resting on the other side, as they gasped for air. 

“Let me talk to the Giant and ask him if one of you were to sacrifice yourself in order to save the village, would he accept this sort of like a Buddhist Monk sacrifice.  So I could touch one of your most noble arises, in order to save the village”?

Light bulbs instantly appeared over the noble leaders heads at the same time, as a plan had surfaced.  So it was decided after much animation but very little discussion.  A great sacrifice would indeed be worthy to the Giant, so the women was taken to the Giant and presented as the first sacrifice and so it goes, the leaders would provide the Giant with alleged Virgins according to negotiations.

Everyone lived happily ever after.

Unfortunately, everyone except the alleged Virgins of the village that is!

Shenonymous, January 22 at 10:49 am:

No no no no no BR549.  She must save the leaders….

The story doesn’t say that.  It says only that she loved them.  The enemy having been defeated, perhaps they were no longer needed.  In fact, they might have been the cause of the war in the first place.  According to the story, if she destroys the bridge, the leaders will die, and if she does not destroy the bridge, everyone will die.  I think the former option is the better one, but tastes may differ.

No no no no no BR549.  She must save the leaders (after all they did defeat the
enemy, even with the ogre who has turned on them).  Now where is your military
acumen?  The trick is to save the guys and kill the giant.  It is a conjunction of
reverse ratio.  Besides she might get some of that CR and gasoline on herself and
self-immolate!  Gracious.  A real zero-sum sitchiashun.  You have such a fine
mind, please go back to the drawing board and create a new better ending.  I
implore you.

The beauty of allegories is to send the wings of the mind soaring into realms of
extraordinary invention.

OzarkMichael’s fabulous fable forged fine fuel for fancy factual formulation.