Are you "reality based"

[Pure]

Do you believe in seeking solutions by carefully looking at 'discernable reality'?

The preferred alternative is that you are act-and-faith based, according to the reality you want to create, according to your faith, goals and values.

Ron Suskind, in "Without a Doubt," today's _NYTimes Magazine_ (a study of the faith of G. W. Bush) tells of speaking to a Bush aide:


The aide said that guys like me [secular liberals] were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
======

Where to you fit in, with the obsolete, passive fact gatherers, or the faithful world shapers?

What are you destined for, you who don't understand faith:

=====
[near the end of Suskind's article:]

And for those who don't get it [faith]? That was explained to me [Suskind] in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush.... He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't.

''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times.

"And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
======

Has anyone read Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_. Is that what we're dealing with, here.?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Umm... I think it's a lot of BS double talk. (consider the source)


A complete and utter load of crap.


These are the same people (neo-con conservatives) who will be attacking liberals on their talk shows tomorrow for saying 'flaky' things like 'there is no absolute reality or absolute morality.'


double eyeroll.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This sounds a lot to me like the way the Bush people were thinking before the invasion of Iraq. How far they were guided by eschatological principles is hard to say, but it looks like some of them at least really thought they were doing God’s work by invading. According to their plans at the time, Iraq would quickly blossom forth into an enlightened democracy, and then Iran would be next on the list. That was the original plan, to set up democracy in Iran and then take care of Iran and Syria and other trouble-makers. Who was going to stop us?

It’s hard to know how many policymakers in the Bush administration are guided by religious principles in their geopolitical strategies, but they do exist and they do wield power. Eschatology says that the End of Days will begin in the Middle East, and there are those who want the USA to do everything it can to start the ball rolling.

---dr.M.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

At least it must be a much more comfortable prospect for someone to envision while they have their head up their ass.

 

[Pure]

Incidentally, Marx once wrote, along the lines of the Bush aide quoted,

Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

What's the difference.

Between Lenin and St. Paul.

Well, if you've read Lenin, Mao, Ho, etc.--not to say Qtub, Osama,--- they *also* thought that, to change the world, you had to know what the fuck was going on; this includes trends and potentials, as well as the denigrated 'discernable' reality. Che, in Bolivia, being an example of the results of misapprehension of 'history.'

As mabeuse says, for St. Paul, it's a 'higher' and eschatological reality that has to be known, so that we act corporately, as members in Christ.

 

[Pure]

Mab said,

How far they [Bushies] were guided by eschatological principles is hard to say, but it looks like some of them at least really thought they were doing God’s work by invading [Iraq].

Well, as you know, a 'crusade' is most effective when eschatology and material interests coincide; here, when 'doing God's work' is the same as 'ensuring oil supply, and mideast dominance.'

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do you believe in seeking solutions by carefully looking at 'discernable reality'?

The preferred alternative is that you are act-and-faith based, according to the reality you want to create, according to your faith, goals and values.

Ron Suskind, in "Without a Doubt," today's _NYTimes Magazine_ (a study of the faith of G. W. Bush) tells of speaking to a Bush aide:


The aide said that guys like me [secular liberals] were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
======

The scary part of that hubris is that he's right. When the US does something, whether good or bad, it is a solution. Maybe not the best solution, but a solution. As such, it does change reality or create new reality.

 

[amicus]

I think I can hear the distant gleeful emmanations from the Kerryite Catholics as they finger their beads in anticipation of cloning through stem cell research and abortions on demand to change the eye color of the child.

To even think that the Liberal mentality, intoto, accepts any concept of 'absolute reality', as they would then feel compelled to follow the observations made, is laughable.

In short, liberals don't have the internal fortitude (guts) to claim aethism as opposed to faith based inspiration...but they do want that share of the faith based vote.

Sighs....witness the demise of the left...once again...but, like mushrooms and bullshit...they seem to emerge again, in the dark.

amicus the humorist...

 

[minsue]

Oh my. You've taken that high dive off the deep end again, haven't you?

 

[gauchecritic]

It seems to me that it has little to do with 'reality' and/or 'faith' or even history makers/observers.

It is more to do with how willing you are to dupe, lead-by-the-nose, cozen or cosy-up with Joe Public.

Right, Left or Liberal, you have to either stand up and be you or mislead/mystify and be one of 'them'.

There are few politicians that keep promises, there are fewer politicians who can correctly predict and ride the wave of public opinion.

These days they (or their advisors) attempt instead to provide public opinion, which act, not being the public, they can only fail in.

Like the man was paraphrased: "Some of the people, some of the time"

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Has anyone read Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_. Is that what we're dealing with, here.?

'Dear Genya,

Convinced of your friendly feelings towards me, I should like to ask your advice on a matter of great importance to me. I should like to meet you to-morrow morning at precisely seven o'clock at the green seat. It's not far from our house. Your sister Varya, who must accompany you, knows the place well.

A.Y.'

from The Idiot by F. M. D (page 520)

 

[amicus]

Thanks Minsue....someone needs to tell the Liberals they have ventured forth from Lit...without any clothes on....

If not now...when?

If not me...who?

The water is nice in the pool duckums...

amicus....

 

[Pure]

Why is Amicus squealing so loud?

I've been thinking about it

What's his problem with the Bushies concept of 'reality-based' (secular liberals) vs. 'act/faith'-based (Christian crusaders).

That the liberal or leftist generally has a relation to reality is NOT in Rand's Holy Writ.

Ami and Ayn only, relate to reality.

Let's try an example:

On Iraq: The left (reality based, in Bushie terminology) looks at facts such as 1) increased anti-Americanism; 2) more attacks on Americans, 3) large civilian casualities. 4) 'colonial' looking situation.

A lot of true libertarians agree with the above points, and add that the government is large, militaristic and adventuresome, which surely curbs liberty at home.

The Bushies (act/faith based) look at the possibilities of democracy and Christianity. Raghead casualties don't count. Insurgencies increasing is a sign of a desperate enemy etc. Yup, a few heads get broken, just get the cameras the hell away; there should be no preservation of 'discernable reality.'

Where does ole Ami fit in?

Well, in a word, he's a Randian with severe moral crotchets.

She had hers too: Both agree that evil must be stomped. (Ayn knew about the Bolshies and their evil deeds against the tsar). And the large corporations (Bechtel) should NOT be reined in by the government. So in one sense the government is on track, in Iraq, fighting 'objective evil'.

Yet it's so damn big, and threatens freedoms. Surely a Randian wants 'freedom'. I think Ayn had some concept of it, but Ami's moral fanaticisms overrule his supporting the pre-requisites of freedom.

In Ami's case, it's 'grin and bear it'; he'll swallow the curtailment of freedom (Patriot Act) and the Christian talk; he'll support Republicans because: evil is fought abroad-- topple Saddam; and at home--keep pregnant moms pregnant, and give the babes to good Republican homes. This is the 'prolife' stance which even Ayn was smart enough to disagree with.

At home with neither left, nor Bush-right, nor libertarian, Ami has a hard time. A quirky Randian, HIS objective reality is seen by so few. Essentially he's left with a shotgun marriage with the Bush-right. They'll be happy with his vote, but would just as soon he shut up about atheism.-- He's a bit like... Mary Cheney.
----

PS, if anyone can help with the analysis, be my guest; it's quite tricky trying to parse principles as distinguished from ignorance, yahooism etc.

-----


Amicus:
I think I can hear the distant gleeful emmanations from the Kerryite Catholics as they finger their beads in anticipation of cloning through stem cell research and abortions on demand to change the eye color of the child.

To even think that the Liberal mentality, intoto, accepts any concept of 'absolute reality', as they would then feel compelled to follow the observations made, is laughable.

In short, liberals don't have the internal fortitude (guts) to claim aethism as opposed to faith based inspiration...but they do want that share of the faith based vote.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Mab said,

How far they [Bushies] were guided by eschatological principles is hard to say, but it looks like some of them at least really thought they were doing God’s work by invading [Iraq].

Well, as you know, a 'crusade' is most effective when eschatology and material interests coincide; here, when 'doing God's work' is the same as 'ensuring oil supply, and mideast dominance.'

For us dummies- what the hell is 'eschatology' and isn't there a 10cent word we could use instead?

 

[shereads]

It's essential to consider all the available facts so you can choose some to disregard.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

For us dummies- what the hell is 'eschatology' ...

Eschatology
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Eschatology literally means the study of the eschaton, the times of the end, 'last things', or 'end times.' In Zoroastrianism, Christianity and in Norse heathen theology, eschatology is a theology concerning the end of the world, as predicted in the prophecies of these faiths, and as recorded in their sacred texts. It can also be the study of general afterlife concepts of other religions, especially the western monotheistic faiths. In this broader sense, eschatology can refer to the messiah, a messianic era, the afterlife, and the soul in religions which have such beliefs.

The word is derived from Greek eskhatos meaning last, furthest, remote, with the root ex — "out of";

As far as we know, Zoroastrianism, by 500 B.C, had a fully developed concept of the end of the world as being devoured by fire, and is thus the oldest eschatology we know of.

And here I always though it had something to do with digestive buiscits.

 

[minsue]

It's essential to consider all the available facts so you can choose some to disregard.

We'll make a politician out of you yet, Sher.

 

[Pure]

Sher is, already.