Power Broker Mentor Project
Psychology *
Philosophy
Physics
Politics
[original 7-24-14]
* 7-28-14 Technical glitches lost the first run at this. Here is the 2nd still under construction.
By intention there are two runs at Physics. Di-Spencering with 4mat dot dot dot?
Rough Clearing House of Disciplines?
Philosophy: Giroux
Physics: Gravity
Politics: OW
Go to *
[Pardon my spaciousness- Apparent Browser Anomaly]
7-30-14 More Triadic Referrals.
Showing posts sorted by date for query power of intention. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query power of intention. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Give 'em a break!
New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
#1 Discipline - Philosophy
Philosophy should be the top priority for the Democrats!
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.
Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".
Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.
War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.
The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].
These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.
Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.
[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]
The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!
The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here ]
Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’
These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.
For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy
[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.
Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".
Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.
War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.
The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].
These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.
Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.
[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]
The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!
The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here ]
Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’
These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.
For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy
[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]
Friday, August 19, 2005
Intelligent Design? More Irony.
Going back two posts to the reality of cause and effect that seems to be denied by Bush, it should be obvious that Cindy Sheehan's important question(What is the noble cause?)is normally addressed preemptively in order for there to be any success in a project. Just how can anyone expect to reach a goal that is shifting and undefined, not to mention prepared for properly without all the input available.
Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.
Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.
Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.
Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.
Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.
Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.
Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.
Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)