subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
the answer is that anything which interferes with the relationship between
siegmund and sieglinde as expressed in their music is clearly evil.  the music
of their interaction expresses a deeper level of truth than can be communicated
through any amount of text, myth or drama.

the contempt we are led to feel for hunding is actually a mirror of wotan's
contempt for his own world, which hunding faithfully follows.


author: Mark D Lew

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
In article <[email]>, Peter
<[email]> wrote:

Maybe because in the production that sometimes airs on PBS he drools.

mdl


author: michael

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
Inotmark wrote:

Taking it literally, wouldn't a battlemaiden have to take him to Valhalla?
Do you think Fricka in her rammobile is going to come and pick up the dead
body?

uhh...what about the idea that H. just killed his son, causing him to
forsake his daughter?  Not a meaningful objection?

michael--
Linux RU#224791 from the KNode
"In a world without gates, who needs windows?"


author: Hans Christian Hoff

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"Inotmark" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

According to the older Edda, only those who had fallen on the battlefield
could be admitted into Valhalla (and to convey them there by horseback was
the task of the Valkyries). Hunding did not fall on the battlefield, and
this, I guess, was within Odin (Wotan)' s power to see on beforehand.

Regards

Hans


author: Inotmark

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
nope.  wotan was already beyond that point by the time he killed hunding.
walhall is wotan's damnation.  he does not return there till his spear is
broken and he is awaiting his own death.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
wotan dismisses hunding to fricka.  wagner is very different from the older
sources.


author: Mike Scott Rohan

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <[email]>
  from  [email] (Inotmark) contains these words:

Only as a messenger.

  wagner is very different from the older

Yes, but he was trying to synthesise and reconcile them. Whoever said
it depended on his interpretation of Norse myth was right, and there
is some indication of that throughout this very act. Wotan says
"Hunding can decide for himself to whom he belongs. For Valhalla he
isn't any use to me." Okay, so there are alternatives, and one of
them is belonging to or following some other god. Then Siegmund,
refusing to go to Valhalla, says "Hella hold me fast!" This does fit
Norse myth very well, Hella being the goddess of the worst land of
the dead, the kingdom of shades -- remarkably close to that of Greek
myth, too. That's evidently where the rejects go, Valhalla being a
glorious alternative open to the brave. Presumably Fricka also has a
right to followers, but not under such conditions. So by sending the
late Hunding to her, Wotan is leaving his fate to her discretion --
"Take him if you want him," more or less, a act of defiance to
revenge himself on her for what she has made him do. She can take
this sorry creature if she wants him that much.

They did this rather well in Seattle -- Fricka actually appeared, and
Hunding acknowledged her, whereupon Wotan struck him dead at her
feet. This made his comment a sneer -- "so you're off to tell her, are you?".

Cheers,

Mike


author: acdouglas

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
[This is a general reply to all in this thread.  Just piggybacking on
Mike's post.]

I think y'all are taking Wotan's words rather too literally here.  It seems
to me he's not sending Hunding anywhere, or to anybody.  His words to
Hunding are simply an ironic expression of utter contempt, for himself as
much as Hunding, and when Hunding falls dead at the dismissive wave of
Wotan's hand (or spear, or whatever), he (Hunding) drops dead of sheer
terror at what he *expected* Wotan's wave of the hand to do to him.

It must be kept in mind that Siegmund's death was not Hunding's doing, but
Wotan's, and a death of direst necessity, and that Wotan is all too aware
of all that.  It's precisely that circumstance which gives that episode its
almost unbearable pathos.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
according to wagner, walhall after the wotan-fricka argument is nothing more
than a high altitude death row.  all there await their ultimate demise with no
purpose whatsoever.  sending hunding to fricka (who is presumably in walhall)
is the equivalent of condemnation of him and all he stood for (an upright and
god-fearing man) to an infinitude of meaninglessness.

the walhall of walkure II post-fricka is most definitely not the walhall of
rheingold.  it is not glorious, the valkyries no longer function, the heroes do
nothing but await their eventual annihilation, and when wotan finally returns
after siegfried breaks his spear, it is to sit mute, awaiting his own
termination.

siegmund's 'hella halte mich fest' is analogous to siegfried's 'so werf ich sie
weit von mir'.  both positively embrace death and remain fearless and defiant
in the face of it.  this is in contrast to wotan's gloomy visions of 'das
ende'.

by the end of walkure II, walhall is no longer a reward, it is a prison where
the unconscious followers of the old ways have gone to die.  as human
consciousness develops, it rejects the artificial strictures of wotan and his
world.


author: Peter

subject: Siegmund's Death

text:
acdouglas wrote:

I wonder why you refer to Siegmund's death as "a death of direst necessity"?


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <[email]>
  from  [email] (Inotmark) contains these words:

No, that is still to come; and I don't really see what relevance it
has to my interpretation, anyhow. This relies on the libretto
immediately before the row, and immediately after, when Brunnhilde is
still offering Siegmund the Valhalla option in good faith. She has
not yet realised it has become a pointless venture; and neither in
fact has Wotan, despite his personal despair. He still hopes for a
way out, as he asks of Erda in Siegfried Act III -- for a way of
halting the turning wheel. Only when his spear is shattered does he
cease to send the Valkyries out to collect warriors. Also, there is
at least an implication that the warriors of Valhalla are still
necessary as a deterrent to Alberich.

 sending hunding to fricka (who is presumably in walhall)

In Norse myth, as Wagner well knew, the gods and goddesses had their
own separate domains with their followers within Valholl.  Your
interpretation is much too premature. And Hunding is not "upright";
that's a mistake made by commentators such as William Mann. Hunding
is a thug and a coward, and guilty of the central moral offense of
the Ring -- the buying or selling of love. He is effectively a
rapist, and as Wotan points out, this renders the marital oath
un-sacred. Fricka is insisting on the observance of form rather than
moral justice. Wotan's comment is certainly ironic, but it is also to
be taken literally; he is sending Fricka Hunding's soul to show that
he has both granted her formal justice and avenged the actual
injustice of it, by removing all benefit to her follower.

No, that is demonstrably not the case. You have mixed up events with
those clearly described by Waltraute as happening post-Siegfried Act
III. Until then, even though Wotan has lost any personal will to
continue, Valhalla remains at least potentially viable.

But it happens to dovetail exactly with the religious belief of Norse
myth -- too much so to be unintentional. There are other references
to Hella in the Ring -- evidently she is to be considered as having
an actual existence within Wagner's synthetic world, and this can
reasonably be assumed to be the same as her role in myth. What you
say is not actually wrong, but it is missing a dimension of meaning.
This is why it is so important to interpret the Ring primarily in
terms of its mythical sources, and only after that in terms of
belief, philosophy, politics or whatever. If you lose sight of the
source, you lose sight of Wagner's primary intention.

prison where

Interesting interpretation (it sounds rather like one of Donington's
Jungianisms) but it simply does not fit the libretto. Also, Brunnhild
here is reflecting rather than rejecting Wotan, so the "human
consciousness" point can only refer to Siegfried, and this rejection
can only take full shape when the spear is broken.


subject: Re: Siegmund's Death

text:
"Peter" <[email]> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------

Considering the corner into which Wotan has boxed himself with his
machinations, and his full realization of his own willful self-deception in
the matter, Siegmund's death at that juncture is the only way Wotan can
begin to extricate himself -- and the world -- from that deceitfully
tangled web of his own making.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
you need to read your libretto more closely:

Waltraute:  Seit er von dir geschieden, zur Schlacht nicht mehr schickte uns
Wotan:

hunding may justly call upon the gods to defend his actions and punish
siegmund.  his requested is answered positively.

nonetheless, he is in the right.  this of course is why wotan destroys his own
world, he sees its flaws.

see the quote above.  you need to read the text more closely.

Wagner did not intend the old myths.  wagner's intention was revolutionary and
was more about the end of myth.  it is sad that so many confront this option by
diving back into the myth and missing the point of the ending (about which he
was quite explicit).

not only does my interpretation fit the libretto, it fits the music.

if you are talking about the todesverkundigung scene, brunnhilde begins it as a
programmed nature spirit who only knows how to do one thing.  by the end of the
scene she has broken away from the gods.

brunnhilde alone in the ring evolves through several stages of consciousness.
she breaks with the gods in walkure and she enters into human consciousness in
siegfried.  at the end of gotterdammerung she cleanses the world of myth,
leaving only a frightened quivering directionless crowd on stage to watch
walhall burn and contemplate a life without the god's superimposed structure.

siegmund also breaks with wotan's world order favoring love over formalism and
therefore rejecting walhall etc.    though siegmund is rewarded for this
attempt with death, he still takes the first step.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

I find your comments regarding the ultimate fate of Hunding most interesting, but I
am wondering why you say that Hunding is a "thug and a coward", or even "effectively
a rapist."

Yes, Hunding had a wife who he received as a gift, but I believe that that was not
uncommon in the period in which the Ring supposedly takes place.

Furthermore Hunding honors the laws of hospitality, and lets Siegmund stay overnight
in his abode, so he appears to know the "lawsof the land."

So I am wondering if he is perhaps more of a "scapegoat" than anything else in the
Ring, and perhaps in order to make amends for this Wagner provided him with some of
the most majestic music in the cycle.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"Mike Scott Rohan" <[email]> wrote [to
Inotmark]:

---------------------------------------------------------

I somehow missed the above on my first reading.

Interpreting the _Ring_ in terms of its mythical sources -- a favorite
occupation of "literary" Wagnerians -- is the single most egregious source
of error and silliness in the interpretation and understanding of the
tetralogy.  It may have been Wagner's "primary intention" to realize the
myths themselves as stageworks, but almost from the get-go his creative
genius took control and took over, and used those sources as mere fodder
for its own purpose.  As with all of Wagner's mature works, the _Ring_ must
be understood exclusively in terms of its libretti and, most importantly,
its music, unconnected with any of its source materials.  To do otherwise
is the surest road to misunderstanding.


subject: Re: Siegmund's Death

text:
Wotan is an immutable god.  he has no choice in the matter.  he may not
exercise free will or alter his character.   Fricka is quite correct and quite
precise in the matter when she asks "so ist es denn aus mit den ewigen
Gottern?"

wotan as a younger god who is more advanced on the way to human consciousness
sees the future, and even creates it in his two lines of offspring.   but he
cannot participate in it.  paradoxically, the only means to his ends is his own
end.  siegmund must die precisely because he is not a free agent, and he cannot
function as an agent of wotan who is not allowed to become something other than
an immutable symbol.


author: Tauser

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
Somewhere RW wrote of his distaste for the convention of marriage when people
are paired, not for mutual love and affection, but alliances made for the
comfort and convenience of only one side (the husband naturally)...and finding
convenient truth of this in the number of women in unhappy marriages who were
most willing to commit adultery.
I think RW intended Hunding to represent the perfect example of a man who
forced a poor woman into marriage (since his clan had vanquished the Volsungs)
and now his status is protected by the power of hearth and home represented by
Fricka. The tension between the honour of his marriage status and the dishonour
that his union has no love it it is Hunding's mortal state.....mirrored in
Wotan's case as well.....and Siegfried's marriage to Gutrune will have the same
ambivalence.

Tauser


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
In article <[email]>, Peter
<[email]> wrote:

[answering Mike Scott Rohan]

interesting, but I
"effectively
that was not
stay overnight

One of the greatest strengths of Wagner's Ring is that, in a universe of
opposing viewpoints, he writes in such a way that every side has its say.

Here Mike seems to be taking the side of Wotan, while Peter is taking the
side of Fricka.  Wagner eloquently expresses both views in the opera,
leaving it to the listener to decide for himself which one is right.

This is why the Ring lends itself easily to such widely varied directorial
"interpretations", and it's why sometimes the best interpretation of all is
to refrain from emphasizing any one "message" and let the audience members
draw their own conclusions.

mdl


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <9v9hto$cel$[email]>
  from  "acdouglas" <[email]> contains these words:

{snip}

Very contentiously put, presumably for the sake of contention,
because this is not a seriously defensible viewpoint. On the
contrary, the mythical sources are the only possible starting point
for dramatic and musical understanding. Look at Deryck Cooke's
masterly musical analyses; in order to understand the musical
structure of the Ring you must understand the construction Wagner put
on his sources, what he selected and omitted, and where that led him
in the course of the dramatic development. The "single most egregious
source" of etc. is political.

 It may have been Wagner's "primary intention" to realize the

Again, not at all. Wagner's intention was to give those myths life,
and to understand his thought processes either dramatically or
musically, you must trace them from the source to the creation.

  As with all of Wagner's mature works, the _Ring_ must

Wagner was a dramatist, first and foremost. He used music as his
chief dramatic instrument, and in the Ring especially the progression
and organic development of the motive structure is intricately
associated with the progression of the narrative, the development of
the characters and what they express in dialogue. To claim that one
must rigidly restrict one's analyses to the finished product without
considering its origins and development, and what use he made of
them, is as absurd as claiming one shouldn't consider Shakespeare's
sources. Or that Wagner can only be treated as absolute, abstract
music, of which, of course, he is the very antithesis. Of course the
work is at the centre of things, but Wagner wrote myth into it, and
expected his audience to respond to that as myth, as the national
heritage, and not as something he himself had created. To understand
as fully as possible where he was going, you must consider where he came from.

Of course, you are very welcome to approach things in such a narrow
way, if you like, but you cannot reasonably demand it from anyone
else, or expect them to respect it. There is nothing specifically
"literary" about the effort to understand. To rule out analysis in
this fashion, and demand one restricts oneself to the Holy Scripture
as if it had sprung into being wholly formed and perfect, is sheer
Taliban-style fundamentalism, and its conclusions just as deficient.


author: Toni-ann Kram

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"acdouglas" <[email]> wrote in message

Seconded.

  As with all of Wagner's mature works, the _Ring_ must

Quite. Wagner had an agenda which was far removed from the original myths.
He was aware that his intended meaning would  be beyond some people's
understanding.

Toni-Ann


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"acdouglas" <[email]> wrote in message

Seconded.

Quite. Wagner had an agenda far beyond the myths.
He feared that it would be beyond the understanding of many people.

Toni-Ann


author: Derrick Everett

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:29:26 +0100, acdouglas wrote:

I have become convinced, over recent years, that Wagner was not bound by
his sources.  They were no more than the raw material that he employed in
order to express his ideas.  The outer action of the "Ring" is not set in
any specific society, or time, or place.  Further, I believe that those
who seek to understand this drama need to distinguish between the *outer*
action, that which is described by a conventional synopsis of the dramatic
action, and the *inner* action, which in the case of the "Ring" some
commentators have seen as taking place within the mind of Wotan.  I regard
Wotan's progress towards human consciousness, the purely human, as a
central idea of the "Ring". Wotan himself does not achieve human
consciousness but Brï¿½nnhilde does. The relationship between Wotan and
Brï¿½nnhilde, at the level of the inner action, is rather different from the
father-daughter relationship of the outer action.  The exact nature of the
former relationship I find hard to define.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:42:36 +0100, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

<snipped>
Although I would not have expressed it in quite the same terms as ACD, I
feel that he makes a point worthy of consideration.  The sources -- in
general I'd call them literary rather than "mythical", although many of
them do embody myths -- are not the *only* starting point for
understanding.  They are one possible starting point.  Even when starting
from another such, the journey should pass through the source material, if
a broad view of the text is to be achieved.  Some of those (alleged)
sources are rather less important than some people seem to realise.

I recall that Nietzsche said that Wagner took stories that had been told
to children and made them fit for heros again.  There is a simple reason
for him doing this.  In the "Ring" Wagner's model (or one of them) was the
classical tragedy of Aeschylus (in particular his "Oresteia" and the
"Prometheus" trilogy, which used to be attributed to Aeschylus).  Unlike
the Greek tragedians, who could assume that their audience would be
intimately familiar with the classical myths, Wagner was writing for an
audience that was out of touch with myth.  Therefore he alluded to the
fairy-tales collected by the Grimm brothers (for example the boy who
wanted to learn fear and who split the anvil) and he constructed his own
mythus from elements drawn from Germanic-Norse myths, some of which would
have been familiar to the contemporary audience through the remnants of
those myths which (according to the Grimms) had been preserved in fairy-
tale or folk-tale.  All of this in an attempt to reach the subconscious of
his intended audience.

I agree that one should not confine analysis to the finished product.  In
the final analysis, however, it is the poetic-musical text, i.e. the
score, that counts and nothing else: neither sources nor even, in many
cases, statements made by Wagner.  As when he is reflecting on his own
work after it was complete or almost complete, statements which in many
instances contradict those made during the creation of the work.

Commentators have been led astray by their assumptions about their sources
(sometimes the obvious sources are not the most important ones, as my
research on the sources of "Parsifal" has shown). Producers have been led
astray too by assumptions about sources, in some cases introducing
elements of (alleged) sources that Wagner had chosen (for his own reasons)
not to use; as well as by Wagner's retrospective commentary, which often
attempted to relate his own work to ideas (religious, political,
scientific, etc.) that were not in his mind when that work was taking
shape.  Understanding presupposes a broad perspective, rather than a few
entries plucked from Cosima's diary.  A narrow view is the surest road to
misunderstanding.

I agree that study of the origin and development of Wagner's poetry and
music is necessary in order to understand the finished score.  Fortunately
Wagner provided more than sufficient background material, mainly in his
copious correspondence (which in the ongoing edition of the letters is
expected to run to 30 volumes!).  What we need, I believe, is intelligent
and perceptive analysis of the dramas informed by this abundance of
background material.

Instead of this what we get (in the constant stream of "Wagner books") is
a succession of "angles" or partial views of each of these dramas, in
recent decades rather too strongly IMHO based on the reflections that
Wagner made on his own works during the last three years of his life. I
believe that this is to start at the wrong end.  Indeed the sources are a
better starting point, although one should not confuse "sources" with
"inspiration".


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"Mike Scott Rohan" <[email]> wrote:

[ACD wrote]

[to which Mike Rohan replied]

Not by design contentiously put.  My statement is a matter of self-evident
aesthetic fact, and requires no defense whatsoever.

Now *there's* a clear example of a not seriously defensible viewpoint.

You doubt me?  Let's look at your attempt to defend it.

That, sir, is patent rubbish.  One can suss out and correctly understand
every detail of the musical structure of the _Ring_ without knowing Word
One of any of Wagner's sources for the drama, or that sources other than
Wagner's own colossal imagination even existed.

[ACD wrote]

[to which Mike Rohan replied]

Wagner's "thought processes" are Wagner's exclusive domain, and the concern
of no-one else, historians and biographers alone perhaps excepted, and who
can only *speculate* on what those thought processes *might* have been.
They (Wagner's thought processes) are without doubt of no use or concern to
anyone who wishes to understand the finished artworks for which those
thought processes were in part responsible.  All that's needed to
understand those artworks are contained in the artworks themselves, which
are nothing other than the end result of the complete transformation worked
on those thought processes by Wagner's genius -- A TRANSFORMATION NOT
UNDERSTANDABLE OR REPLICABLE BY ANYONE ELSE.

[ACD wrote]

[to which Mike Rohan replied]

Yes indeed.  With that I've no argument at all.

[Mike Rohan continues]

Non sequitur to what immediately preceded it (your last-quoted graf), for
starters.  And to go on, there's nothing in the least absurd about not
considering Shakespeare's sources.  Shakespeare's sources are a matter of
use and concern to no-one other than Shakespeare, and to his biographers
and other historians.  They (the sources) shed no aesthetic illumination on
the plays whatsoever -- zero, zip, nada, bupkiss.  As in the case of
Wagner, as in the cases of all creators of Olympian genius especially, the
sources from which an artwork has sprung are of value to the creator alone,
and to no-one else.  In short, in matters aesthetic, they are, at best,
perfectly useless, and at worst, thoroughly misleading.

[Mike Rohan continues further]

A palpable straw man.  No-one ever suggested anything of the sort.

Yes, Wagner "wrote myth into it" -- a mythology of his genius's creation.
That's one of the most astonishing things about the _Ring_.  In that work
Wagner accomplished the humanly impossible:  He single-handedly created a
*living* mythology; one that bore only superficially on the
ordinarily-created mythologies from which he drew.

And your contention that Wagner "...expected his audience to respond to
[the _Ring_] as myth, as the national heritage, and not as something he
himself had created" is too absurd a contention to require explicit
refutation.

Wagner!  Of all people!

Jesus.

[Mike Rohan concludes]

I demanded nothing of anyone, sir.  I merely offered an educated and
very-well-informed opinion.  In the same manner as you say I'm welcome to
approach things in the way I've outlined, you're perfectly free to approach
those same things in whatever way gives you satisfaction and pleasure -- of
whatever sort.  And you should also expect that informed others -- those
not in the least given to, or impressed by, shows of inappropriate and
wrongheaded erudition -- will have as little respect, and as much contempt,
for that approach as do I.

And with that, I think we ought to let the matter rest -- between us at any
rate.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <[email]>
  from  "Toni-ann Kram" <[email]> contains these words:

You second, but you don't support, just as the original assertion was
made without support. Given that it requires one to ignore both the
core material and motivation of the creation, such an assertion must
be very strongly justified.

But which required the myths as his starting point! Otherwise why
choose that particular subject at all? The libretti did not come out
of the air; in fact they often quote chunks of Norse poetry, directly
albeit broadly, as in the crucial Wotan-Erda scene. In order to
understand what he made of it, you must first refer to the original.
Otherwise you will never understand where his agenda took him, and why.

Was he? Yet he was intensely concerned with communication, so much
that he preferred those precious libretti to be sung in translation.
This, I'm afraid, is perilously close to the "coded anti-semitism"
argument. Wagner was not given to coding his messages. While there
are certainly intense subtleties in his musical expression, they are
not intended to be gnostic or intelligible only to a few, but
comprehensible on whatever level, intellectual or emotional, through
the drama. One ignores what he sets in front of us at one's peril.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
it is defined clearly in terms of the musical genesis and growth of brunnhilde.
 although there are more than one example, wotans sings when he steals the ring
from Alberich "nun halt ich was mich erhebt, der, der Machtigen machtigsten
Herrn"  - very roughly translated as 'now i hold that which lifts me up, the
mightiest lord of all might'.  This phrase is set to a series of modulations
through an augmented triad Bb - D -F#.  The same triad is presented melodically
in his peroration to Walhall "auf berges gipfel die gotterburg; practig prahlt
der prangende Bau!" (on the mountains summit the Gods' fortress, proudly gleams
the glittering structure).

The augmented triad as Wotan's exaltation is developed in the character of
Brunnhilde whose motto is her battle cry of an augmented triad. on B resolving
to an augmented triad on C.  As Brunnhilde increases in human consciousness,
this augmented triad evolves in musical strength from a mere melodic figure to
a series of modulations: for example in her final entrance in Gotterdammerung,
and in her command to the vassals to pile up the firewood 'vollbringt
brunnhilde's wort'.

There are also some interesting tonal properties of the augmented triad.  WHile
the goal of tonal evolution is defined by nature as the rising fifth (in scene
one of rheingold and the opening of scene two of rheingold).  The goal of human
evolution seems to be the rising semitone.  that is, tonal relationships are
based on linear relationships of keys rather than on the circle of fifths.  The
augmented triad favors the latter development.  An augmented triad a fifth
above another actually stands in a regressive tonal relationship one half step
lower:  (C-E-G# is one half step lower than F-A-C#.).  The very choice of this
tonal structure favors the 'human' half step resolution upwards over the
'natural' evolution of a fith upwards.

So, Brunnhilde grows out of tonal images that exalt wotan.  She develops those
images to the point where Wotan is annihilated.  She is his tonal daughter and
the physical embodiment of his conscious and unconscious will.  This is made
clear through the evolving musical relationships.


author: Didrik Schiele

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
Derrick Everett <[email]> wrote

Wagners idea of the educating art should have a role here. Wagner was
in the hope that the new art (and he made his attempts to bring this
off) should be one that supplied knowledges and experiences to the
listener. I think this is a wonderful allegory for how the older
generations pass their wisedom over on the younger, stating that as in
Janaceks "Die Schlaue Fï¿½chslein", natures wheel is moling steadily,
and powermongering stupidity can just slowen it down temporarily but
never halten it.

For the more concrete side Wagner was to times reported to have been
very suspicious towards new inventions, such as the camera, or the new
scenemachinery at Bayreuth operahouse. Seeminly the same ambibvalence
as his sayings on the Jews. But Wagner often spoke the opposite what
he meant or felt.

Didrik Schiele
[email]


author: Richard Loeb

subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
I do admire a lot of Mike's writing but he does get it wrong sometimes - in
his Gramphone review of the Chereau Ring he incorrectly states that Wotan
places the Woodbird for Siegfried to find - that in fact happens in the
Kupfer Ring (it's not even a real bird in that Ring just a plastic bird on
the end of a stick manipulated by Wotan).  In the Chereau Ring there is a
caged (real) bird that Siegfried releases, a symbol of his own freedom at
last from Mime - but Wotan doesn't put it there.

"acdouglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9vb55o$ggi$[email]...
fodder
concern
to
worked
importantly,
otherwise
on
alone,
approach
of
contempt,
any


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <9vb55o$ggi$[email]>
  from  "acdouglas" <[email]> contains these words:

In other words, we have to take your word for whatever you choose,
without question?

"I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!"

Dear me. It certainly discredits whatever else you have to say,
better than I ever could.

Oh yeah? To take an example, I've just quoted, only one of the many
examples where Wagner draws directly on Old Norse poetry, how are you
expected fully to understand the Wotan/Erda encounter in Siegfried?
Producers and translators frequently get a major point of this wrong.
But of course you know about that instinctively from the libretto, so
let's hear you explain it.

That's a pretty big exception! How about people who wish to
understand the Ring as fully as possible, rather than assuming they
must by their impeccable instincts have taken in everything to do
with it? That surely doesn't say much for the richness of what Wagner
produced. Personally, I don't believe I can ever encompass it all;
but I believe in trying.

Bluster to confuse the issue. As you well know, there's all the
difference between understanding and replicating, and I was never
trying to claim that replication was involved -- as you well know.

Nor is full understanding possible, naturally; but greater
comprehension, certainly. Otherwise why get involved in a group like
this at all? Why not just let Wagner flow in one ear and out the
other in blissful vacuity, undisturbed by thought or imagination,
uncaring who gods and giants and dwarves and Valkyries actually were,
or how they related to one another? But you do know, and not from the
libretto, which doesn't make any of that clear. So that much
knowledge is essential to you. Perhaps if you care to acquire more,
you might even understand more. It's certainly the more modest approach.

You mean you can't or won't understand the connection. It's there and
it's clear.

  And to go on, there's nothing in the least absurd about not

Wow. Well, that certainly puts paid to scholarship and the enquiring
spirit, doesn't it? So our correct response to art of all kinds is
just to stand there with our jaws hanging down?

Then you must be no-one.

{snip}

Why? What you've said is anything but conclusive. The attack was
yours entirely, and you must support it, or stand discredited. All
we've had here is more unsupported assertions, amounting to the
absurd conclusion that any kind of artistic quest for comprehension
may not be taken beyond the actual work. So what do we know of the
"Night Watch", if we don't know what a Night Watch was? Jesus! indeed.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
I guess I'm being simplistic about the whole thing but .. while I agree that
a person can certainly enjoy and be profoundly affected by the Ring on its
own, I find for myself that the more I read about the sources, myths, etc
the more I tend to get out of this work. For example I certainly loved
Parsifal from the first time I heard it, the more I read about (and I really
enjoyed Lucy Beckett's book) the more I seemed to "get out of it". Just
speaking for myself of course..

"acdouglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9vb55o$ggi$[email]...
fodder
concern
to
worked
importantly,
otherwise
on
alone,
approach
of
contempt,
any


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <889S7.303381$[email]>
  from  "Richard Loeb" <[email]> contains these words:

Caged, yes. And who put the bird in the cage? That's significant. On
stage there was little doubt Wotan knew where the bird was -- at his
significant final words to Alberich he moved away into the framing
trees uostage to stand more or less underneath it, then back again to
exit; admittedly in the video that's less obvious, but you can still
see him do it.

One of the keys of this production, though I doubt Chereau actually
understood the full implications, is that Siegfried's "free heroism"
-- and through it, Wotan's quest -- is debunked. Wotan controls all
his motivations and sources of information, as by supplying the Act I
forging machinery. Kupfer, of course, took this a stage further,
though his production is generally much better thought out.

Cheers,

Mike


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"Mike Scott Rohan" <[email]> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------

Your "arguments" are vapid, sophistic, and without any merit whatsoever.
No-one, least of all myself, has ever suggested that one ought to "...just
let Wagner flow in one ear and out the other in blissful vacuity,
undisturbed by thought or imagination," nor have I suggested that by paying
attention exclusively to the music and the libretti one will have "...by
their impeccable instincts...taken in everything to do with [the _Ring_].

Talk about "[b]luster to confuse the issue"!

The _Ring_ is a stage work, not some bloody treatise on philosophy,
mythology, political ideology, or any other such extraneous and exoteric
rubbish.  The aesthetic of it -- the aesthetic of the theater, drama, and
(Wagnerian) music-drama -- is the *only* thing that counts.  All else is
nothing more than self-important academic posturing, and risible academic
gibberish, in so far as the full appreciation and understanding of the work
as a work of art is concerned.  All the raw data, so to speak, necessary
for the *complete* understanding of the _Ring_ is contained within the work
itself, as I've already stated, just as it is with *all* great works of
art.  That's virtually a definition of what makes a work a genuine work of
art.  The extent to which one must make appeal to things outside the work
itself for understanding is a direct measure of that work's failure as a
work of art.

Your assertion that anyone who doesn't involve himself in the quest for an
understanding of the _Ring_ by rummaging through all sorts of materials
outside the scores and libretti is someone who "...let[s] Wagner flow in
one ear and out the other in blissful vacuity, undisturbed by thought or
imagination, uncaring who gods and giants and dwarves and Valkyries
actually were, or how they related to one another" is perfectly idiot, and
perhaps a more contemptible something else as well.  Who and what those
personages are, their relationships one to the other and to the arc of the
drama of which they are a part, are all contained within the libretti and
scores of the _Ring_ itself.  Whatever else those personages and their
relations and relationships may or may not have been in the original
sources is totally beside the point, totally irrelevant, and of no value
whatsoever to anyone wishing to understand the _Ring_ -- *Wagner's* _Ring_.

And BTW, just so you don't imagine my position has been taken to defend my
not examining those sources that I've here contended are totally
unnecessary for a *full* understanding of the _Ring_, you can, without any
fear whatsoever, bet your very last dollar that after my first exposure to
the _Ring_ I made an examination of those sources at least as close as any
you've made.  How else could I know with such certainty how useless and
unnecessary they are.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"Richard Loeb" <[email]> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------

This is not about "enjoy[ing] and be[ing] profoundly affected by the Ring."
This is about *understanding* the _Ring_.

That being the case, I'd be most interested to learn what those sources
taught your understanding of the _Ring_ -- *Wagner's* _Ring_ -- that you
could not have gotten from a study of the work itself.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:56:29 +0100, Richard Loeb wrote:

I hope that my comments, not infrequently negative, on Lucy Beckett's
"Parsifal" book have left the impression that it is of no value.  On the
contrary, the earlier chapters are well-researched and provide the reader
with an introduction to the sources, text, music, stage history and
reception history of "Parsifal".  It is with the last chapter, with
Becketts's "proposed interpretation", that the book went wrong (and I
know that I am not alone in holding this opinion).

For a more balanced introduction to "Parsifal" I'd recommend the recent
book by Peter Bassett, "Wagner's Parsifal: the Journey of a Soul".  For
those who read German and want something more substantial I can recommend
the study by Ulrike Kienzle: "Das Weltï¿½berwindungswerk: Wagners
Arthur Schopenhauers" (The Work about Overcoming the World: Wagner's
'Parsifal' - a Scenic and Musical Parable of Arthur Schopenhauer's
Philosophy).  My only criticism of Kienzle's very perceptive study has
been that she was too much focussed on WWR and paid too little attention
to Schopenhauer's "minor works".  Two of those minor works I consider to
have been critical to the conception of "Parsifal".


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
No Mike it's caged because you can't have a live bird flying around the
Festival stage (Chereau could have put a plastic bird in the cage if he just
wanted to make the point that Wotan put it there)  It's a live bird that is
freed as a simple symbol that's all. And if you say that Wotan putting the
bird there "negates the whole rationale" then isn't the Kupfer just as bad
if not worse since you actually see Wotan manipulating the bird.!!!

"Mike Scott Rohan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
in
Wotan
on
a
at


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
"acdouglas" <[email]> wrote [in answer to Mike Rohan]:

---------------------------------------------------------

Incomplete closing sentence above.  Sentence should have read:  "How else
could I know with such certainty how useless and unnecessary they are, and
how great a source of error and misunderstanding they can be."


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:10:00 +0100, Derrick Everett wrote:

Oops, that should have read: ".. have not left the impression that it is
of no value". The point is that it is valuable, despite it being
incomplete and presenting an interpretation that I regard as wrong-headed.


subject: Re: What Happens to Hunding?

text:
The message <mftS7.305922$[email]>
  from  "Richard Loeb" <[email]> contains these words:

No. The cage is significant, and not just a container. You can think
what you like, of course, but I can certainly demonstrate that I
didn't get this idea from a mistake vis-a-vis Kupfer, as you claim.
In one of my books, The Classical Video Guide (Victor Gollancz,
London: 1994) I refer to it specifically. And in that book I reviewed
only the Kupfer Rheingold and Walkure, because Siegfried and
Gotterdammerung hadn't been released yet; I'd never seen them, and
was in fact annoyed that they didn't appear in time. Nor had I seen
them on stage; I've never been back to Bayreuth for the complete Ring
since 1986. I've seen some individual performances, rehearsals etc
but never the later Kupfers. If I had seen them on stage, I'd at
least have put a note about them in the book, to flesh out the first
two reviews; but the latter two didn't even get into the second
edition. So, while this may be a difference of opinion, it is not a mistake.

So where did the idea come from? Well, I remember it being banded
about very early on, but where, I'm not immediately sure; since that
was nearly twenty-five years ago and I was barely out of college,
that isn't too surprising. Very possibly it was the Bayreuth study
groups, to which both Boulez and Chereau himself spoke -- and in
which a "mythographer", incidentally, was given almost equal
prominence. Certainly it seemed obvious in context, and indeed it's
been pretty much a "given", as part of the same concept as the
provision of the forging machinery, in every discussion I can
remember since then. In fact, I've never heard it questioned it,
before, that I can remember.

 And if you say that Wotan putting the

You bet your boots -- except that Kupfer doesn't also sabotage
Siegfried's principal liberating achievement, the reforging of the
sword -- in effect, his assumption of Wotan's purpose and its
transformation into his own. Hence the Wanderer's questioning of
Siegfried -- where did the shards come from, how would I know but
they were no use to me till I remade them, etc., in effect a
catechism to ensure Siegfried is in fact the free hero, the final
proof of and completion of which is his, and the sword's, ability to
shatter the spear. Kupfer leaves that, the more important part
intact; therefore Wotan's manipulation of the Woodbird, although
stupid and unnecessary, is less destructive. It is the combination of
the two which is so lethal to the rationale. And in Chereau's overall
concept that combination, that completeness, is essential; Siegfried,
to be as ineffectual as Chereau intends, has to be dependent on
Wotan's intervention both for his weapon and his direction.

Cheers,

Mike


author: Robert J. O'Hara

subject: Cicero on education: source and translation

text:
Greeting, all.  My high school Latin serves me well in recognizing
word roots these many years later, but not in translating full
sentences, alas.  In an essay on liberal education from the 1820s I
find the following embedded quotation from Cicero:

"And of what use is a display of rhetorical elegance, from one who
knows little or nothing which is worth communicating? Est enim
scientia comprehendenda rerum plurimarum, sine qua verborum
volubilitas inanis atque irridenda est. Cic."

Can anyone point me to the source, and perhaps offer a translation?

Many thanks.

Bob O'Hara
 The Collegiate Way:
 Residential Colleges and Higher Education Reform
 http://collegiateway.org


author: Robert Stonehouse

subject: Re: Cicero on education: source and translation

text:
[email] (Robert J. O'Hara) wrote:

Look up 'volubilitas' in Lewis and Short and any other big
dictionary you can find. It is a strange enough word to give a good
chance of finding a mention of the passage.

Lewis and Short mention Cicero pro Plancio 25.62, where they quote
'linguae volubilitas' and so it doesn't look like being your
passage, and 16.53 where they do not quote anything, and so it might
or might not be. Also de Oratore 1.5.17. I haven't got either of
these and so can't help further.

Translating: You have to understand (est comprehendenda: 'there is
to be understood') the knowledge (scientia) of a great many things
(rerum plurimarum), without which (sine qua) copiousness of words
(verborum volubilitas) is meaningless and absurd (inanis atque
irridenda est).

Cicero is pointing out that an orator is not just someone who can
talk; he has to know a lot, so that he has something to say, so that
what he says has some point to it, makes sense.

To make reasonable English, I have turned round the construction
'est comprehendenda scientia', 'the knowledge is to be understood'
(where 'scientia' is the subject of the sentence, in the nominative)
into 'You have to understand the knowledge', where 'the knowledge'
is the direct object and if literally translated into Latin would
have to be in the accusative. This is just in case anyone thinks I
have mistaken 'scientia' for an accusative!
[email]


author: J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz

text:
"Robert J. O'Hara" wrote:

De oratore I,5

---------------------
Jose-Luis Perez-de-la-Cruz
ETSI Informatica
POB 4114
MALAGA 29080 SPAIN
Tlf +34 952 132801
Fax +34 952 131397
--------------------


author: Christopher Jacobs

text:
Robert J. O'Hara <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
--------------

My Latin is not all that great itself, but it appears to be saying
essentially the same thing. Very crudely translated, I come up with "Indeed,
knowledge is understanding the most of a thing, without which fluency of
words is empty and moreover ridiculous."

It calls to mind the amusing diatribe by Lucian absolutely excoriating an
ignorant book collector who prided himself on expensive deluxe editions of
classics and rare works to show off, but did not appreciate them as literary
art. "Pros ton apaideuton kai polla biblia wnoumenon" is in the Loeb Lucian
volume III. I'm not sure what the Cicero quotation is from, but he sums up
politely in one sentence what Lucian takes quite a few pages and heavily
sarcastic digressions to say with many insults as he can think up.

--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/TheTHREAToftheMUMMY.htm
(THREAT OF THE MUMMY movie website with premiere info, stills, background,
Quicktime and RealPlayer format preview trailers, and a print-quality
poster jpg file)


author: Horace LaBadie

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Robert
Stonehouse) wrote:

SNIP

Est enim et scientia comprehendenda rerum plurimarum, sine qua verborum
volubilitas inanis atque inridenda est, et ipsa oratio conformanda non
solum electione, sed etiam constructione verborum, et omnes animorum
motus, quos hominum generi rerum natura tribuit, penitus pernoscendi, quod
omnis vis ratioque dicendi in eorum, qui audiunt, mentibus aut sedandis
aut excitandis expromenda est;

De Oratore, Bk. 1

HWL


author: Evertjan.

text:
J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz wrote on 25 Mar 2002 in humanities.classics:

<http://patriot.net/~lillard/cp/cic.oratore1.html>


author: Richard Nikoley

subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
"Dean M. Sandin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Some anarchists might reject such a possibility, but not most
anarcho-capitalists of whose positions on the matter I'm aware.

One way to describe "law," from a libertarian perspective, is a set of
institutionalized rules backed by force. What makes them objective is what
they decree, not who decrees them. For libertarians, objective law is
strictly retaliatory against those who initiate force in a manner which
measurably and unreasonably harms individuals or their property (there are
technical initiations of "force" which are harmless, such a shining a light
on someone).

Since anarcho-capitalists generally advocate market-based private (or
publicly held) business organizations which compete with one another as
courts (to create and decide matters of law) and protection/defense agencies
(to protect and defend customers according to a specific service contract),
and since rational human beings necessarily live in reasonable harmony with
*objective* law, then it's reasonable to believe that a market for laws will
produce the most harmonious laws, i.e., objective ones--unless you hold the
position that on the whole mankind is irrational, in which case, all is
pointless and arbitrary.

Richard Nikoley


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Anarchism [Erratum]

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

Hmmmm.  I
in charge

I don't know about McDonald's, but they have lemon freezes at Steak n'
Shake.

-- at no extra charge

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


subject: Re: Anarchism [Erratum]

text:
In article <8rqs7h$1nv$[email]>,
  Jim Klein <[email]> wrote:

Did you write this on purpose?

-- at no extra charge

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Dismuke

subject: Re: Anarchism [Erratum]

text:
[email] wrote:

:-)

Kind of reminds me of Gail Wynand's line in _The Fountainhead_:
"And, of course, a quest for self-respect is proof of its lack."
Thanks dbuel!

Gee - I must be losing my touch or something.  How could I have
overlooked such a classic Kl-aynism?

                                |
                             Dismuke
                                 |


author: Jim Klein

subject: Re: Anarchism  [Erratum]

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

You're having so much trouble understanding, Dizzy, that salvation of
meaning may simply be impossible with you.

I didn't know you considered Akston such a foolish character in _Atlas
Shrugged_.  That's pretty interesting...are there any other foolish
characters or storylines in the novel for you, or is he the only one?

jk


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Jim Kl-ayn wrote:

Actually, Jimmy - you are the one who brought this up and has been going on and
on about it!  As to not knowing the subject - well, let's hold that thought for
just a moment!

Really, Jimmy?  So exactly who is "going on and on about this without even
knowing the subject?"

Really?

Huhhh?  Have you started drinking,  Jimmy?  What about Marx?  What about
Hitler?  What about all of those environmentalist whackos out there?

Jimmy, not only do I not know what Rothbard would have said about it,  I could
care less!

Jimmy - I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever about the accuracy of Dean's
statement.  Nor do I have the time or the interest to educate myself enough
about the matter to form such an opinion.  Unlike some people around here, I do
have a life.

Basically, it all boils down to this: either Dean's statement was accurate
or it
was not.  Let's, for the sake of your pointless little exercise in mental
masturbation, assume that what Dean said was, in fact, NOT accurate.  So what?
I can think of several ways that it would be possible for someone to make an
inaccurate statement that have nothing to do with the person's honesty.  For
example, it is possible for a person to pass on erroneous information that was
accepted in good faith from someone else.  It is possible for a person to be
given fully accurate information but then misunderstand or misread it.  It is
possible for a person to become confused and get the details of two very
different events mixed up.  As I said, there are all sorts of possibilities.
For someone - who by his own admission is not very knowledgeable about the
issue
at hand -  to take such a statement and rant on and on about how it means the
person is dishonest is an *enormous* leap of logic.  In this instance, it is a
departure into the realm of a self-induced fantasy world fueled by your ven
omous
emotionalism.

This is the exact same thing that the leftists are trying to do to John Sto
ssel,
one of the very few decent and objective journalists who exist in the national
media.  Stossel made some inaccurate statements about the alleged benefits of
organic foods - so now his honesty and journalistic integrity is under assault
by the left.  If it is wrong to do this to a professional journalist - who
quite
properly should be held to a high standard - then it is certainly  not prop
er to
attempt to do it to someone who puts up a posting to a Usenet forum.  I say
"attempt" because, as far as I am concerned,  your assertion that Dean's
statement is inaccurate is meaningless.  I have no idea one way or another
about
the accuracy of his statement.  But, if  Dean were to assert something that
strikes me as interesting,  I would be willing to take it into consideration.
On the other hand Jimmy, I attach about as much significance to your assertions
as I do the chatter of the little birds sitting in the treetops.

Where did you get that line, Jimmy?  Have you been watching those low budget
western movies that they run overnight on independent television stations?

I think my manhood will remain intact regardless as to whether or not I choose
to respond to your postings.

I said:

And Jim Kl-ayn replied:

I called them up and asked.  Like I said before Jimmy, a mind is a terrible
thing to waste and the thought of you not being able to achieve your full
potential truly disturbs me.  That is why I think a part time job as a burger
flipper would be so beneficial for you.  Therefore, I called McDonald's and
 told
them all about you.  At first, they had some reservations - but when I sugg
ested
that they could keep you in the kitchen away from customers, they became a bit
more willing to listen.   You see, Jimmy, even in places like Detroit, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are willing to work for
minimum wage.  Even when they do find them, turn over is very high.  I think
what really sold them on the idea was when I pointed out that, even after you
are trained and brought up to speed, there would be very little danger that
 some
other place down the street would come along and offer you 10 cents an hour
 more
to go work for them!

So, Jimmy - here is a link to a list of some of the things that you will be
expected to master on your new job.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/careers/regional/expect/index.html   I
know it will be a challenge - but I have full confidence that you are up to
it!   The most important thing to remember is to always wash your hands whe
n you
are finished doing things such as going to the bathroom or putting up your hpo
postings!

                                       |
                                    Dismuke
                                       |

                       "Everybody's Favorite Mononominal"
                     http://dismuke.dismuke.com/dismuke.html


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

Then you must mean something different by "reality" than the rest of us.
What I refered to was specific and clear.

One of the nice things about being me is that issues of my honesty are
nearly never an issue.  I daresay that's so even from your POV.

But even if not, the issue of my honesty was never under question here.

No...it wasn't "alleged dishonesty" and it wasn't "certain people."  It was
one particular instance of dishonesty from one particular person.

What---are you saying that you're going on and on about this without even
knowing the subject?  If that's the case, then I'd say that's well beneath
you.  If perhaps you just forgot, the particular person was Dean Sandin and
the particular instance of dishonesty was this sentence...

"Rothbard clearly advocated the view that anyone may rightfully inject
physical force into human affairs."

I'm not a Rothbard expert and I'd guess that Dean has read more Rothbard
than me.  After all, it'd be pretty tough to have read less!  But even I
know that this is not true.  In fact, except for Betsy's recent foray into
such craziness, I don't think _anyone_ has _ever_ "clearly advocated the
view that anyone may rightfully inject physical force into human affairs."

Now about that I might be wrong, but I've never heard of such an example.
Do you maybe have one?  I'd be interested if so.  But I do _know_, having
read the false charges against Rothbard by Peikoff (passed along by Betsy)
and the _actual_ quotes from Rothbard on the topic, that _he_ definitely
didn't believe that "anyone may rightfully inject physical force into human
affairs," unless you want to start dodging about anyone having the right to
protect their life and such.  Of course, in that case nearly everyone-
including you and me--holds that particular view.  I'm quite confident that
Dean didn't mean to say that Rothbard, like Rand, believed that any person
may protect himself with force.

So now that we've cleared up which person engaged in precisely which
instance of dishonesty, what do you have to say about it?  Do you think
Rothbard really believed what Dean said he did, or do you concede that it
was a bit of bullshit rhetoric on the part of Dean?  If the former, can you
provide any reasonable evidence in support?  If the latter, what is your
judgement of someone who would misrepresent the position of others on such
an issue?

_That's_ basically the question which you were supposed to answer directly.
At least now you're beginning to be on topic, so maybe you'll get around to
answering.  Or maybe not.  You've probably figured out by now that I'm not
very interested in your opinion;  I'm just wondering whether you'll be man
enough to answer the question.  FWIW, my guess is that you will be.

You're projecting again, Dizzy.  You're the one that appeals to fantasy and
esoteric humor;  I'm nothing but direct.  IOW there's nothing for you to
fall for, with me.  That's _your_ approach, of which you're thinking.

I appreciate the example of my previous point, but I don't really need it.

It's funny that you'd call that a benefit.  But rather than wondering what
your basis for that might be, I'm curious how you came by such information.

Really I'm a little curious about both, so answer 'em if you wish.  But
don't forget to answer the question about the dishonesty to which I
referred...directly, if you're able.

jk


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Jim Kl-ayn wrote:

Jimmy,  I have been gone for all these many months and you didn't say one word
about how much you missed me being here.  Weren't you were worried about me?
What if something awful had happened?  Aren't you glad to see me back? What's
the matter, Jimmy?  Don't my feelings matter?

I asked:

And Jimmy answered:

Of course I will, Jimmy!

I was curious because I really do care.  You see, Jimmy, your postings over the
years have been a great source of amusement to me.  I could just get my cheap
chuckle and run - but that wouldn't be very compassionate of me, would it?  You
see, if there is anything that I cannot stand it is to see ability go to waste.
It would be such a tragedy to not find a way to put your unique talents to
their
best possible use.  You know what they say - a mind is such a terrible thing to
waste.  That is why I offered the suggestion about taking a part time job at
McDonald's!

Why should I be?  I went away for many months on end and you don't seem to give
a rat's ass about the horrible things that could have happened to me!

There was nothing implicit about it, Jimmy!

That is because the mononominal - those of us who have but one name - have no
choice but to stick together. In light of all the persecution we face by na
mist,
monophobic polynominal bigots, we have decided to overlook each others' faults
in the name of unity.

Who says that you and I must always disagree on things, Jimmy?  I agree wit
h you
completely!  I don't like the white supremacists either!

No thank you, Jimmy.  I don't think I would look very good in a tutu!

                                       |
                                    Dismuke
                                       |

                       "Everybody's Favorite Mononominal"
                          http://dismuke.simplenet.com


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Jim Kl-ayn wrote:

Gee, Jimmy - I have been gone all these many months and now that I have
dropped in for a little bit, I see that you are still at it spewing out
your...uh...uh...words of....uh......"wisdom."

I am curious about something, Jimmy.   Have you ever stopped and tried to
calculate just how many hours you have spent over the years putting together
all the stuff you have posted to hpo?  Have you ever thought about how much
more money you would have if you had instead spent that time flipping burgers
for minimum wage at McDonald's?

Just a little something for you to think about, Jimmy!

                                      |
                                   Dismuke
                                      |

                         http://dismuke.simplenet.com


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Dean M. Sandin <[email]> wrote:

        The point is that "objective law" is always claimed by all
statists. It is an empirical issue. Given a monopoly of force there is
little incentive to remain objective.

                                  L1

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Dean M. Sandin

subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Richard Nikoley <[email]> wrote:
   on Mon, Sep 11, 2000 16:16 EDT
   in <7147858C2F8BD31182D50050DA18A1FC036655@ZEUS>

I've seen a spectrum of these positions and they are united by the
common factor of insisting on subjective law -- by sanctioning the
resort to physical force by anybody who feels like it.  This is aptly
brought out by saying that "A'C'" means that death squads may
operate.

Irrelevant distinction.  A necessary part of making law objective is
that it applies non-contradictorily.  Two "authorities" claiming
authority over the use of physical force is a contradiction.  This
is basic to _any_ government, good or bad.

Libertarians have some superficial similarities to Objectivists.
Just no common foundation.  You've named an aspect of objective
law in the _normative_ meaning of government -- making the law fit
the standard of what is _good_ law.  But you'll never get anywhere
until you've identified _government_ in the first place.

There's where contradiction runs rampant.  Multiple "authorities"
claiming jurisdiction is a contradiction.  Which gun pointed at
him is a peaceful citizen to obey?  Force is supposed to be banned
from social relationships, not sanctioned.

--- Dean


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dean M. Sandin <[email]> wrote:

It was only a matter of time.  One doesn't integrate a corrupt philosophy
without eventually having to resort to just plain, outright dishonesty.

It happened to Betsy;  now we see it's Dean's turn.

jk


subject: Re: Anarchism  [Erratum]

text:
Jim Kl-ayn wrote:

Really, Jimmy?  Well, let's take a look at the comment of yours that we are
supposed to salvage meaning out of.  Here it is:

     "Personally I think you'd better give up the McDonald's or old, cheap
     entertainment schticks...the latter for obvious reasons, the former
     because
     you'll likely not win speaking about employment with an employer."

Now, Jimmy - what other kind of employment is there other than that which is
with an employer?  Perhaps your remarks wouldn't need salvaging if you learned
to write better!

I wrote:

And Jimmy replied:

I think you misunderstand, Jimmy.  I wasn't trying to compare Hugh Akston to
you!  Quite the opposite.  I was suggesting that, by comparing yourself to
Akston, you could at least put some sort of positive spin on your situation.
And what a situation it is!  Here you are - Jim Kl-ayn, the Great Philosopher
who claims to have a much better understanding of  Objectivism than Leonard
Peikoff and others that you so affectionately refer to as "ARIans."  Yet it is
these so-called "ARIans" who hog all the fame and glory while you are stuck in
Detroit typing away to an obscure Usenet newsgroup where half the people either
laugh at or ignore your postings.  I am sure that you regard this a being quite
the moral inversion.  Taking a part time job flipping burgers at McDonald's
instead of posting to hpo would do more than just provide a more productive use
for your time.  It will give you the opportunity to say that you have withdrawn
your efforts from hpo because you have gone on strike against an unappreciative
world!

In other words Jimmy, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade!   Hmmmm.  I
wonder if McDonald's sells lemonade.  If so, maybe they could put you in charge
of making it!

By the way, while we are on the subject of McDonald's, once you start to work
there, do you think that you could perhaps pull a few strings and arrange a
 free
Happy Meal for Chris Cathcart?  He is always in such a bad mood.  I think the
poor boy could use some cheering up!

Absolutely.  There are lots of foolish characters and storylines in _Atlas
Shrugged_.  Let's see, there's Tinky Holloway,  Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch,
Ivy Starnes, James Taggart and Kip Chalmers, to name just a few.  And Directive
10-289 was pretty foolish if you ask me.

Really Jimmy, this is pretty basic stuff.  Are you sure you have actually read
the book?

                                       |
                                    Dismuke
                                       |

                       "Everybody's Favorite Mononominal"
                     http://dismuke.dismuke.com/dismuke.html


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

I don't think any of those folks hold the view in question;  I think they
believe(d) that _they_ may rightfully inject physical force into human
affairs.  Y'know...just like the average ARIan line.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Do you have any _evidence_ that any of those folks
believed what you say they believed?  Or are you just spouting again?

You mean "couldn't," I think.  So IOW when someone says something about
another person and someone points out that it was a dishonest charge, you
don't care at all whether it was dishonest or not?

That's cool.  I can understand that, especially when the two involved aren't
you;  I have a tendency in that direction myself.  So why did you suggest
that you'd answer a question on that very point directly?  Were you just
spouting again?

Okay...I got that.  You wish to join in a topic and say you're going to
answer a specific question directly, but have no interest in finding out
about the accuracy of the central statement under debate.

Hey...I never said you weren't consistent!

That's pretty obvious Dizzy and isn't news to anyone here.  It's so obvious
that it pretty well goes without saying.

Clearly so...that must be why you've written the longest post in a thread
about which you say you couldn't care less, have no opinion about the
question you're addressing and have no desire to learn anything about any of
it.  That's alright---it's also no secret that the facts of reality are
irrelevant to those of the ARIan persuasion.

Just say what you wish, and reality will go along!  That's the ARIan battle
cry, isn't it?

Me too, and David Friedman makes this point regularly here.  It's a
worthwhile point.  So are you now saying that you _do_ want to address the
issue?  For a guy who has such a busy life, you seem to be able to spend a
lot of time writing in response to what you consider "mental masturbation;"
so much time that you're able to switch opinions as you write.

I'd hate to think what you'd do if you were bored!

Oh yes...those are all possibilities for the general situation of _somebody_
saying _something_ false about _somebody else_.  Maybe you forgot already-
no doubt you're distracted with writing such long posts and being so busy-
but we weren't talking about _somebody_ saying _something_ about _somebody_.

We were talking about Dean saying a particular comment about Rothbard.  I
already pointed this out to you explicitly;  maybe you're just too busy to
pay attention.  So spill the beans---are you offering one of these
"possibilities" for the instance in question?  If so, which one and what's
your evidence?

Golly, Dizzy;  you're _really_ not paying attention!  I didn't say I wasn't
knowledgeable about the issue at hand;  I said I wasn't an expert about
Rothbard.  Really, that's what I wrote;  you can go back and check if you
wish.  And that's _not_ the issue at hand;  the issue at hand is Dean's
dishonesty.  And it so happens that I believe I know enough--about both Dean
and Rothbard--to make an informed opinion.

So I did.  What's the problem?  You say you don't know and don't care, but
you've got an awfully lot to say about it.

You may _think_ you're very busy Dizzy, but you obviously have way too much
time on your hands!

That's one of the problems with you ARIans--you just can't connect your
thoughts with reality.  Very problematic indeed.

I made it up.

Nope...I don't like Westerns very much, except those classic Italian ones
with Clint Eastwood.  Why---are you implying that it's _me_ who's caught up
in the past and cheap entertainment?  Surely you don't want to go down that
road, you two-bit hypocrite.

You're really, really, really not paying attention Dizzy.  It's no wonder
that you manage to lose all the points and never progress.  Plus, you should
know me better by now.

I would _never_ imply that responding to my posting could make _any_
difference in your being a man.  Really, in your case I think you'd be a bit
more of a man to simply ignore me;  I think the masochism you display
doesn't serve you well at all.

No...I was saying that _keeping your word_ is what makes you a man or not,
and you chose to write that you'd answer my two questions directly.

Now tell me that if you understand nothing else between us, you understand
this.  Or don't, and continue spouting as a fool.

This is "having a life"??  Like I said, I'm glad you're not bored!

Nice words, but your actions belie your real belief.

Dizzy...the Busy Mononominal.

jk


author: Dean Sandin

subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Dismuke wrote in <[email]>:

[....]
[....]
[....]

It's even possible that something in fact true could be said in an
unusual way, in order to get someone else frothing at the mouth!
Not that your own nominally mononominal monologues have been known
to do that!  Stop me before I type another exclamation point......
.......! Aargh!  It's Mad Magazine Syndrome!

Incidentally, I suppose you feel compelled by solidarity to vote
this year for a fellow mononominal....namely "W"!

-Dean


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

I wrote _exactly_ how much I missed you being here!

No, but only because I didn't think about it.  If it's any consolation to
you--and apparently it is--I might've worried had I thought of it.

OTOH...not for very long!

Then something awful would've happened.  Is this a test or something?

Sure...an ARIan who's only 90% brain-dead still offers hope.

Not very much.  Why do you ask?

To whom?  That's your intrinsicism showing through again;  you took _Fact
and Value_ much too deeply to heart.

Cool.  Now let's see if you do...

Okay...I suppose you answered the question.  I don't know about "as directly
as I answered yours," but at least you answered the question.

It's not that I don't care;  it's that I realize that whatever might befall
you would likely not be worse than that which has already befallen you.
Even losing a limb or organ would hardly be worse than what you've allowed
to happen to your mind.  That's the sad part--that it was your _choice_.

OTOH you've still got about 10% left, by my reckoning!

Oops...you forgot to answer the question, Dizzy.  Here, maybe you didn't
catch it:  "Secondly, do you have no comment about the dishonesty to which I
refer?"  Remember?  You were going to answer my questions as directly as I
answered yours.

The funny part is that we agree on almost everything, including our opinions
of ourselves and each other.  Now just as soon as you surrender that faith
based emotionalistic philosophy of yours, then you'll be as rational as me.

As it stands, you only get to be as correct as me on most topics;  one day
you'll come to understand the difference.

We all have our means of escape, Dizzy;  I've got no problem respecting
yours.  Just don't forget to answer the question about dishonesty.

jk


author: Chris Cathcart

subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

one word
about me?
back? What's

Hey, I missed you!  You're one of the few ARIans here that are,
overall, pleasant to have around, since you normally stay away from
saying things that make ARIans so repulsive (or, in Freddie Weiss's
case, so laughable -- before it gets boring, anyway).  Believe me, you
are much more of an asset to this group than your pal Stevie could ever
hope to be, just on the value of your sense of humor alone.


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
	Dismuke <[email]> wrote:

Thanks, but wisdom goes more to the conclusions.  This is just plain
identification here, basically.

That's a good start;  maybe there's hope for you yet!

No.

No.  Now let me ask you a couple of questions;  maybe you'll answer them as
directly as I answered yours.

Firstly...of all the things about which to be curious, why do you pick those
two particular ones?  Is there some philosophical relevance there, or are
you just obsessed with what I do?  FWIW...while I think that would be a
mistake on your part, you could do worse!

Secondly, have you no comment about the dishonesty to which I refer?  IOW,
do you believe that judgement of such things is totally irrelevant compared
to some implicit snipe about how much time I spend on hpo?  I find it just
so, so interesting that those who make such a big deal about judgement are
silent when it comes to judging "their own."  That's why I say that
hypocrisy is the most pernicious trait common to many ARIans.

Et tu, Dizzy?

And to that point about how much time I spend on hpo, you might want to take
notice of the _facts_ before you make up such stuff, like how many posts
have I written in the last few weeks.  You have the sense of timing of a
moron and if you understood the first thing about Objectivism, you'd
understand that identification should _precede_ judgement.  You demonstrate
here, yet again, how you and the Brethren exactly invert Rand's philosophy.

As I keep saying, I'm not short of evidence for that charge;  my cup fairly
runneth over.  But thanks anyway.

That's cool.  Let us know when you're ready to take your turn.

jk


author: Eric

subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Dean M. Sandin <[email]> wrote:
 requires.  The objectivity of law arises crucially from the
 monopoly on -- i.e., non-contradictory, exclusive jurisdiction
 over --

Sounds good to me but I have a few specific questions.  Are there any
limits whatsoever, whether it be size or the amount of people involved,
to this jurisdiction?  I posed a question to Dbuel in another post-
let's say Americans decide to overthrow the current criminal political
system and start from scratch with the goal of instituting freedom. The
process involves people having the right to freely choose "governments"
to protect their rights.  The overall consensus is that the previous
constitutional system was ineffective and too centralized to protect
rights efficiently, so now people want to take advantage of their right
to consensually delegate retaliation to proper governing agencies of
their choice, and anyone who criminally uses force against others will
be stopped.

Is this a legitimate process, and if so, is this not AC?  If it's not a
legitimate process, then why not?

Apparently not, judging from history.

-Eric

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
[email] wrote:
   on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 10:10 EDT
   in <8pldfa$g1n$[email]>

It's also "claimed" for -- and is true of -- a proper government.
Your mentioning statists in this fashion is a smear.

Yep.  Everywhere we look, we see government, and we see the
control of physical force illegitimized outside of a single
authority.  And prohibited in fact, too, except where people fight
it out over who is to be the authority that bans force in
principle.

You apparently have little grasp of what objective law is and
requires.  The objectivity of law arises crucially from the
monopoly on -- i.e., non-contradictory, exclusive jurisdiction
over -- i.e., objective control of -- the use of physical force in
society.

There's _every_ incentive to remain with a system that places
force under objective control.

--- Dean


subject: Re: Anarchism  [Erratum]

text:
In article <8riqom$tbh$[email]>,
	Jim Klein <[email]> wrote:

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that you lose all the points as opposed to
winning them.  I meant that you lose all the points as opposed to being able
to stay focussed on them.  After all, it figures that the perfect inversion
of Rand's philosophy would be so perfectly unfocussed.

But FWIW I concede that once or twice you've said something either correct
where I was incorrect, or at least funnier than anything I wrote.  Maybe if
you take your time, you'll be able to do it here;  your best shot is to try
for the latter, I think.

Personally I think you'd better give up the McDonald's or old, cheap
entertainment schticks...the latter for obvious reasons, the former because
you'll likely not win speaking about employment with an employer.

jk


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Eric <[email]> wrote:
   on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 13:05 EDT
   in <8plmlh$s0j$[email]>

The limits are governed by people's philosophical and cultural
ideas.  These affect whether there can be sufficient agreement as
to the nature of justice and rights, and as to mechanisms of
enforcement.  For example, it would seem possible for the U.S. to
take in Canada, as something the people of both societies could
find to be in their rational interests.  But NOT for the U.S. to
take in Mexico.

Geographical size and population numbers are omitted measurements
in this regard.  In principle, taking in a single Saskatchewan
border town is on a par with taking in the whole of Canada.
Limits having to do with simple quantities are not matters of
relevant principle, but of coordination and physics.

Well, one could understand the above as a quick take on the
formation of the U.S.  So yes, it's legitimate, and yes, it's not
"A'C'".

History shows nothing _but_ such systems.  Nowhere is chronicled
multiple authorities simultaneously subjecting their society to
their use of force, except in struggle to emerge with a monopoly.
And nowhere have a people yearned to be subject to multiple and
contradictory "authorities".

--- Dean


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
involved,

I agree that cultures are different and will factor in determining
legal boundaries but the fundamental question is whether consent exists
and rights are protected.

in this regard.  In principle, taking in a single Saskatchewan
border town is on a par with taking in the whole of Canada.
Limits having to do with simple quantities are not matters of
relevant principle, but of coordination and physics.

Then you do agree that the relevant principles are the recognition of
rights, private property, and consent?

political
system and start from scratch with the goal of instituting freedom. The
process involves people having the right to freely choose "governments"
to protect their rights.  The overall consensus is that the previous
constitutional system was ineffective and too centralized to protect
rights efficiently, so now people want to take advantage of their right
to consensually delegate retaliation to proper governing agencies of
their choice, and anyone who criminally uses force against others will
be stopped.

formation of the U.S.  So yes, it's legitimate, and yes, it's not
"A'C'".

This is exactly what Rothbard supports along with Rand and many other
AC writers, so it seems to be a semantical issue.  If not, then you
have to explain clearly what the differences are concerning the legal
process of a free society.

multiple authorities simultaneously subjecting their society to
their use of force, except in struggle to emerge with a monopoly.
And nowhere have a people yearned to be subject to multiple and
contradictory "authorities".

This is false.  Check out Benson's Enterprise Of law for examples of
decentralized, non-monopoly, stateless societies.  Overlapping
jurisdictions and conflicting laws have always existed and always will
exist.  You yourself said, "geographical size and population numbers
are omitted measurements", so unless people don't leave there homes you
will always have multiple authorities subjecting law to individuals.
Also, keep in mind that law is not always geographically based.  As
Barnett explains-

"Courts and judges have therefore, traditionally found peaceful ways to
resolve the two questions most likely to lead to conflict when multiple
legal jurisdictions exist: Which court system is to hear the case when
more than one might do so? And which law is to be applied when more
than one law might be applied? Much of the court-made law of 'civil
procedure' addresses the first question, and an entire body of law
called the 'conflict of laws' has arisen spontaneously (that is, it was
not imposed by highest authority) to provide a means of resolving the
second of these two questions...The argument that we need court systems
with geography-based jurisdictional monopolies does not stop at the
border of a nation-state. Any such argument suggests the need for a
single world court system with one Super-Supreme Court to decide
international disputes and its own army to enforce its decisions. After
all, the logic of the argument against a competitive legal order
applies with equal force to autonomous nations."

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


subject: Re: Anarchism

text:
Eric <[email]> wrote:
   on Wed, Sep 13, 2000 12:01 EDT
   in <8po8ac$si5$[email]>

Those are vital to having the proper form of objective law in
society.  Having the proper form assumes objective jurisdiction
in the first place -- everyone in the society subject to the same
authority.

The differences are not "semantical".  That's the false language
resorted to by anarchism seeking a fraudulent respectability.
The differences are philosophical.  Rothbard clearly advocated the
view that anyone may rightfully inject physical force into human
affairs.  (To compensate for this denial of reality, he also
relies on fairies sprinkling pixie dust to ensure that this
works.)  Ayn Rand clearly advocates the view that this is wrong.
They could hardly be in more fundamental disagreement.  As always,
Ayn Rand takes the philosophically objective position and her
opponent takes a non-objective position.

No such thing.  You have either a primitive society (bands,
tribes) in which men are ignorant of more complex ways of human
existence -- in which the control of force has yet to be
"centralized" in the first place -- or you have a society that has
developed an organized political and economic structure -- in
which case as a necessary part of that it has organized the
control of physical force.

There are times and places where a local population devolves from
that.  It gets nasty, brutish, and short.  _That's_ "decentralized"
and "non-monopoly".  Freak, dead-end societal conditions do NOT
serve as a basis for the philosophy of law.  Pathologists and
anthropologists may rightly study them, however.

The concretization of "overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting
laws" is warfare.  This exists precisely where common agreement on
the rule of law cannot be reached.

That's utterly stupid.  There are clear and compelling reasons
why differing peoples cannot reach a healthy agreement on living
under that same rule of law.  If fact, you already asked me what
principles must be satisfied in determining the proper boundaries
between legal systems, and every indication is that you accepted
my answer.

--- Dean


author: Ryan Jamieson

subject: The College Student Anti-War Mentality

text:
I walked out of class today, already extremely embittered by a
professor who lectured on the importance of increasing government
control and regulation over telecommunications in Canada--to be
obstructed by a considerable gang of chanting anti-War
protestors--many of whom were adamantly waving and displaying Iraqi,
among other non-Canadian/American, and flags and banners.

I could hardly hold back my rather bulky 6'2" frame from violently
assaulting these mindless pigs. What hit me immediately, though, was
not that these slime bags exist in droves at this particular
University in Canada, but that these vermin were *inside* a major
building on campus, blocking access to the entrances and exists, and
interfering with the general flow of student traffic between lecture
halls, screaming their tribalist chants and grunts as well as banging
quite loudly on drums.  I hope our professors are happy that these
kind of people are the concrete end product of today's Humanities and
Social Science programs.

My main immediate concern with respect to this problem is that if one
of these worthless shitheads, male or female, ever were to run into
me--perhaps even inadvertently--thereby initiating force, I think I
might lash out with physical force (and I'm not kidding).  If that
were to happen and depending on the exact circumstances, and I were to
seriously hurt one individual, and supposing that a large number of
these anti-Americans ganged up on me and caused some bodily damage
against me, how do you think the courts would handle the matter?

Ryan Jamieson


subject: Re: The College Student Anti-War Mentality

text:
Mark Sieving <[email]> wrote:

But that consideration presumes that there are useful and reasonably
priced psychotherapists available to me.  Moreover, the vast majority
of psychologists and social workers in the field sympathize, in
philosophical terms, more with these protestors than they do with the
fundamental tenets upon which America was founded.  Don't forget where
they were educated.

Strictly speaking, I believe the protestors have political rights;
loosely speaking, given their behaviour and ideas, I would loose no
sleep if someone else did assault them en masse.  By supporting Iraq
and hating America, they themselves are asking for it, whether they
know that consciously or not.

-Ryan Jamieson


author: Dana

text:
"dave odden" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kaBA9.12225$[email]...
These
to
gathering

What sticks in the minds of the people watching the news, is that these
protestors do not have any agenda besides disruption of society.
If you have to resort to violence to protest a popular military action, than
you are worse than those who are engaging in, or calling for military
action.

or

And there is no reason to block anything, or break anything. If you are
protesting a military action, why are you yourself engaging in violent acts
against innocent people.

think
that

Must people are individuals and would rather not conform to an ideal of
someone else, especially if those other people use violent techniques to
attract attention.

May have been blamed on drunks, but in reality was caused by people from the
left, who may or maynot have been drunk.


author: Don Matt

text:
dave odden <[email]> wrote in message news:<arjl5d$spe$1@
charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...

 I can't understand why you think it is bizzare. I only made a
conection between US students inability in finding Iraq, which is the
subject of much discussion inside US, and a very probable inability in
locating and discussing South America, which has not been inside your
media recently. As I said before, US students geographical inability
don't rely on my personal opinion. Waste a little of your time and
take a look at: www.nationalgeographic.com and you'll find the
resoults and some comments about the research I was talking about.

A recent survey of
 I canï¿½t imagine how this information is related whith our discussion.
Give me your sources.

 In fact, I must admit, you took a good point. I can not really defend
conclusivelly that these people against war are more informed than
people that want war, considering the refered research. Uninformation
seems to be an "overseas" problem. Perhaps we have many different
sources of information the major part of population seems to rely on
emotion and patriotism when deciding to vote and taking a political
position.

 A better assumption is that they've been informed

 By what means did you conclude this? Who would be this someone else
you refer? And if this someone else exists what would be his/her
reasons? Considering that most of people only get information from TV,
and most of this information and government propaganda only try to
convince people that Saddan is evil and war is fair, I understand it
is much easier a person manifest in a war movement than the not
probably pacifist position.

 But they have no idea what Iraq actually is, or where Halabja is,

 In every human group you will not find homogeneity. In a pro-war
movement 90% will fail to defend consistently their position because,
as I said, most of people rely more on emotion than on rational
arguments. The same is true with these leftist groups. I agree that
most of them don't know exactly what they are doing and maybe want
only express anger about anything. Maybe that's why some of these
people are agressive and are hated. But most of their leadership is
consisted of informed people and their purpose is make people think.
This is suported by the evidence that they (their leaders) have
consistent ideas about politics and society.
 US is about to start a very questionable war, suported (as far as I
know) by the great majority of population. Since normal media don't
expend much time discussing the bad aspects of this war I think it is
reasonable people protest against publically, in order to make society
discuss seriosly this important issue.

 They are

 Once people are listening their drums at least they are calling
attention to their music...

Don.


text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<IacC9.19911$XF5.3479524@new
s2.west.cox.net>...
 Even if it was the only difference it is one you would probably not
know. This is not my personal opinion. A recent research showed that
87% of US students don't have the competence necessary to find Iraqui
on a globe map. That is why I defend the opinion that the college
students that complain about a possible war in middle east represent
the best of your society. It is not in discussion here if they are
right or not (this is another issue). The fact is that they are an
informed group of your society and they have the right play their loud
drums in order to call the atention and make people think and get
informed about things.

 If one assumes a rational point of view about something the concepts
should be appliable to similar situations. You said that the enourmous
internal and external South America debt are a culture problem and I
understand that a change in SA culture is necessary to solve the
problem. So, the huge afraidness of terrorists and the war on terror
are a problem of the US culture and the US will only change this if
you change your culture. Is it right?

 As you probably don't know, Brazil has one of the most extensive
agrarian
lands in the whole world. We have in our territory 22% of the non salt
water of the world and the most of it is still unpoluted. Our food
production this year exceed by thousand of tons our necessities. If
our society was an agrarian one (don't supose I desire this) no one
here would starve. So, the starvation argument reveals nothing but the
complete darkness of your mind when you discuss issues that involve a
country different from your own.

 How can you admit that a very small part of something represents the
whole thing? By what means you concluded that my opinion stands for
the current opinion in South America? I am very happy I don't think
like you so I don't have to imagine that you are the expression of USA
mindset. Discuss US culture and point of view is a thing a billion
times more complex than your mind.

  I have just done it.

     Don.


author: dave odden

text:
Don Matt wrote:

That's a really bizarrre argument. Neither Buenos Aires nor Rio de Janeiro
are in Iraq (I presume you know that); why you think that means anything
about what these guys know is completely beyond me. A recent survey of
brasileiros who post on HPO shows that they have a hard time constructing
simple, coherent arguments.

What? Oh, I see... you are assuming that since they are whining about a war
with Iraq, they can locate Iraq on a map. You've already given us some
undifferentiated statistical evidence that this is not true. You're not
using very good reasoning. A better assumption is that they've been informed
by someone else that they should oppose war with Iraq, and they do what they
are told. But they have no idea what Iraq actually is, or where Halabja is,
or where Kuwait is. They actually contribute no knowledge whatsoever about
Iraq, and (I can tell you, having gotten into it with a number of these
dopes) they are really remarkably ignorant about Iraq and Islam. They are
calling attention to nothing.


author: John Alway

text:
Don Matt <[email]> wrote in message news:<82f24994.0211211318.7
[email]>...

   [...]

  The terrorism problem is a problem because there are nutty muslims
out there who hate the West, and the U.S. best exemplifies the west.
The U.S. is a victim because of its virtues.

  Case in point, check out the Miss Universe pagent in Nigeria, where
50 or so people were murdered in a Muslim riot.  A riot caused by
their hated of the "decadent pagent".

  Here is the story:
  http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=nigeria

  Here is a key excerpt, and why they murdered circa 50 people:

[quote]
Street demonstrations began Wednesday with the burning of an office of
ThisDay newspaper in Kaduna after it published an article questioning
Muslim groups that have condemned the Miss World pageant, to be held
Dec. 7 in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

Muslim groups say the pageant promotes sexual promiscuity and
indecency.
[/quote]

  The U.S. ain't the problem here.  Not remotely.

  The solution to the problem is to crush the enemy.

  ...John


author: Tom S.

text:
"Starblade Darkstar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Significant difrence? No.

By mandating them. By repeatedly refusing to implement the practices that
require bailouts. And most predominantly, by institutionalizing the scenarios
those negative practices.

By understanding that those values not only contribute, but mandate that
reliance.

Just what do your think a culture sets up?

Because the culture is NOT one of individual responsibilty, but one of
collectivism that runs in lockstep with their repeated failure. As well, the
culture is not conducive to properity, but of poverty. When that same sulture
refuses to accept the responsibilty for their failure, demands bailouts, makes
adolesent excuses, then you have the situation that has been palying out
throughout South America for generations.

Pardon me?

they

Look at their situation. There's even a phrase for it; "Banana Republic".

Bailouts. If the free market countries hadn't been bailing out SA for the past
75 years, they would have starved long ago. As such, they're lloking like they
still might. Isn't that they picture they show us on beg-a-thons?

hat's what I was telling Don. The nations of SA see it as war and one they
would likely lose.

Because he so aptly demonstrates exactly the mindset that permeates South
America. His attitude is the expresion of the culture entrenched in South
America.

Oh, really. Care to support your position?

democracy

In a very real sense, it can also be the greatest of evil. I do have empathy
for those countires that were overrun (Eastern Europe, for example), but NOT
for those that shot themselves in tha balls.

Exactly, but when a democracy installs the same tyranny or socialistic
economy/political system, they have no one else to blame. As P.J. O'Rourke
stated at the end of his book _Parliament of Whores_, "..in a democracy, the
whores are us".
Here we get back to the cultural aspects. If individual rights and free
markets are subservient to the collective and economic fascism, in a democracy
that is a result of the dominant CULTURE.

Okay, the _people_, those that comprise the NATIONS.

BS

Still haven't figured it out, have you? And the peoples and NATIONS continue
to wail and whine and entrench themselves in poverty. Well, the information is
there. They ignore it at their own peril.

I'm not the one whining, SB. Get that through your head.