The last synapse

Tuesday, January 17, 2006
It fired--I think I have reached blog overload. As much as I enjoy the spectacle of a good fisking, I am honestly coming to believe that there is a down side to blogging. Deconstructing an argument by looking at it line by line; making allusions to the bloggers education or credentials; making silly rhetorical arguments with respect to specific statements--these are the things that characterize much of blogging today.

I am NOT sure thats a good thing. Sometimes I think we should consider the impact and intent of the entire work without deconstructing it. Imagine how a blogger might look at these words" "We hold these truths to be self-evident. Endowed by a creator with certain inalianable rights.....etc."

Jefferson (and Locke and Hobbes): "we"
Anonymous blogger: who is we--he doesnt represent the mainstream--look at the most recent polls...... etc"

Jefferson (Locke and Hobbes) Endowed by a creator...

Blogger: Creator: whose creator? the big bang? mother gaia? this is intelligent design and should not be taught in classrooms....yada yada

Jefferson:"....with certain inalianable rights?"

Blogger: Inalieanble? all rights are inalianble--it's part of the political process....Rights? our rights are determined by.....

Anyway--you get my drift.

I guess I am having a bad day where we really dont think about what I like to think of big picture stuff: Response to Religious Extremism; threats to Civilization as we understand it; without resorting the the petty little process that results in inane deconstruction of the IMPACT of the totality of the statement being made.

OK--I am going to search out that last remaining grey cell and kill it


Seneca the Younger said...

Alcohol is spoken of well for such purposes.

Buddy Larsen said...

I agree, RogerA--I'm going to quit rising to such picayune bait as you example. It's pointless and silly and a waste of time.

Doug said...

Possible Future Post Material For RogerA from Peter's World:

UK PC: Cop May Be Fired For Referring To Criminal As "Pondlife"Unbelievable:
A DETECTIVE is facing disciplinary action by his force for referring to a career criminal as “pondlife” in a private conversation with another officer.

The detective constable, who faces possible dismissal from his job, has been told that the criminal “might have been offended” had he heard the remark, although he was not present at the time.
Critics call the investigation -- with dismissal as a possible conclusion -- "ludicrous," but that's hardly any consolation. No one should even have to say the obvious.
The guy is a convict several times over, too.
We pretty much lost two wars to these guys?
Did the Treaty of Ghent involve our custodianship of their balls?
Thanks to James.

Doug said...

I think blogging is a very healthy pursuit.
For those not prone to addiction.
I think.

Doug said...

(I just killed my dog when blogger crashed and stole a priceless post.)
Damned steel toed heels.

Buddy Larsen said...

Steel-toed heels--no wonder you feel like kicking yer dawg, yer boots is on backards.

flenser said...

I know the feeling Roger. As I sit at my keyboard having the same argument with somebody that I have had thousands of times before over the last few years, I wonder if its really a worthwhile way to spend my time.

I think the answer is "No", which is why lately I just don't bother.

Syl said...

alpha male with that gargly voice?

No way.

Blubber and sweat are not very attractive.

Doug said...

Buddy, 8:05 PM,
Boots, what boots?
We're Talkin High when I say heels.
...and oh so pointy toes.
Poor Dog.

truepeers said...

We all get tired, but if we give up, where is there to retire? Do you want to go back to the MSM, the MSE, where are you going to go?

There's a lot of crap out there; but there's also some very serious stuff in the blogosphere. For example, read Prospero, who has no tolerance for deconstruction. And you will find, at the PRospero post I link, a very sophisticated and true understanding of the relationship between the religious and the secular.

You don't like religious extremism? Well, what exactly do you figure the relationship is between extremism and secularism? Prospero argues that the religious sacred and the secular sacred can only be understood in relation to each other. If you like western secularism, the ever increasing decentralization (at least so far, though many resist decentraliztion, especially on the left) of the culture, the freedom accorded the individual, well then you have to see how this freedom is related to a specific religious tradition, one that starts with the Abrahamic movement against sacrifice, on through the Mosaic spirit of exodus, through Christ and the decentraliztion of the church/temple, such that every person becomes a temple in his or her own right as a per-son. TO defend our secular order you have to defend the religious tradition that made it possible. Otherwise your choice is Gnosticism or perhaps the Islamic version of the relationship between the revealed sacred and the secular sacred - and here there seems to be much less room for the kind of decentralization typical of western culture, or, in other words, the "omnicentric" secular culture in which everyone becomes a center in his own right.

truepeers said...

per-son? Why did I write that? My last tired synapse... Our idea of a person, which comes from Christianity, is not derived etymologicaly from "each son", but derives from the idea of a persona, a mask we wear to perform personhood on the model/in the spirit of CHrist.

terrye said...

I can not speak for Roger but he think he is talking about the "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.

And flenser has a point too...after awhile it just seems pointless.

I sometimes feel like people deliberately misunderstand one another just so they can argue.

[I don't make myself immune that charge either]

Seneca the Younger said...

per-son? Why did I write that? My last tired synapse... Our idea of a person, which comes from Christianity, is not derived etymologicaly from "each son", but derives from the idea of a persona, a mask we wear to perform personhood on the model/in the spirit of CHrist.

Yeah, right.

Knucklehead said...


I've been struggling with something similar lately. Or, perhaps and in my case, I am just struggling with my painful level of inarticulateness. A number of things have caught my attention recently that I wanted to write something about and just gave up because I could find no way to clear up the foggy notion of the "bigger picture" that is the thing I wanted to get at.

For example, I spotted a report that some Chinese admiral in the early 15th century may have circumnavigated the planet and that the Chinese had geographic knowledge they put into maps long before the "west". The claim made about this, should it be proven true to any significant degree, is that the "history" of the 15th century would need to be radically rewritten.

The larger picture thing I would like to get at is "why". How does the discovery that Chinese sailors and cartographers had knowledge that nobody can detect them taking any action upon require the radical rewriting of history? How does awareness of some "fact" of which we previously were unaware alter anything (at least in such cases as this)?

I have grown weary of the faux intellectual game of "gothca". Finding an century old map that hints of centuries old bits of "knowledge" that was neither widely disseminated nor expoited does not "alter history". Yet there are so many so desperately eager to foist upon us the notion that "this changes everything."

But my own musings about such things are barely worthy of the comments section.

Buddy Larsen said...

HI! Al Gore here! Yeth, I agree. I want you conthervativth to quit arguing with my thide of the poltical thpectrum. In fact if you don't quit it, I thall beat you on your chetht with my tiny little fithts and thkweem like Bobwa Thtanwyk!

Knucklehead said...

thkweem like Bobwa Thtanwyk

Whenever I see a shot of Gore in one of his wide-eyed, spittle spewing, gaping maw, enraged grizzly bear schticks I can't help wondering where I've seen, minus the spittle spewing, that face before. Now I have a hint. I'm not ready to accept the comparison but it is an interesting one. I don't suppose there is any way to convince the former VPOTUS to toss himself into The Big Sky sans parachute. More's the pity.

Buddy Larsen said...

Now THERE's a Gore move I could contribute to! reminds of the comic who was wondering why skydivers wear helmets--like, whaa?

Yep, Gore showed his sissy/bully self well in that stage-crowding he tried on GWB in one of the 2000 debates. He moved up behind the talking Bush, got way too close, and was back on his heels, leaving his whole midsection open if Bush had wheeled and one-two'd the solar plexis.

It was all right there--the guy's fight tactic is to be large and in-the-way, 'taking punches'.

Domestic disasters aside, he'd get us whupped bad in every round internationally.

truepeers said...

SEneca, I gave a Christian interpretation of personhood, which makes sense since this the word comes into our culture through that religion (via Rome). That's not to say that any one's relationship to the sacred in any and all religions does not have its own kind of individualizing force. The sacred always individualizes, creates consciousnes, at the same time it creates communion. There were certainly individuals before there were CHristian "persons". All religions create "individuals" and their own secular shadow that can survive even when the faith declines. Western secular individuals walk in the shadow of the Christian person (and other individualizing forms of sacrality) whether they are CHristians or not, whether they like Christ or not.