WOKE and proud of it....

[Gary Childress]

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

Is there something wrong with "homeless wanderers". We're all going to "end up" as a corpse somewhere.

[Alexiev]

Decidedly not. The journey is instrumental to the destination. You journey in order to arrive. Nobody sets out on a journey unless he believes there will be some point(s) of arrival, at least along the way, if not at the ultimate destination. But ideally, he believes it's even possible he'll arrive at the full end of his inquiry -- or there's no point at all.


Mountaineers aim at the peak. That's where they hope to plant their flag and take their picture. If they don't, they aren't "mountaineers" at all...just wanderers.

You obviously know nothing about mountaineering.

Is this always your first tactic? To try to induce some kind of "shame"? It's pretty funny, actually, and really, really feminine. You should stop that. It's not at all disconcerting to a sensible interlocutor, and it's not flattering to you. It makes you look petty.

The peak can be reached by many routes.

According to your own theory, you NEVER reach the peak...and you know you won't, before you even set out. Remember? It's the journey, not the destination?

But the "peak" analogy was yours, not mine. And I find it faulty. For as Gary misconstrued, it makes things look as if we're aiming at a single, perfect point of complete knowledge of everything. But knowledge has many stops and stations along the way -- each, a destination in its own right, and each worth the journey to get there, even if you didn't get beyond.

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

The journey -- not the destination -- is important and enlightening.

You've screwed up your own theory. According to you, it's not "enlightening" at all. You never "arrive" anywhere. You never actually "learn" anything. You just wander, confused, indefinitely, because to come to "know" something would mean you'd arrived at a destination.

If the only reason to journey is to arrive somewhere, you will be disappointed. When Amundsen set out to discover the South Pole, what did he discover? A patch of frozen ground like every other patch. He didn't discover anything by reaching the pole -- he discovered something by journeying toward it. The destination is an excuse for the journey, not the reason for it. The road goes ever on and on, as one hobbit was wont to say. The journey is its own destination.

The climber climbs to explore the route, not to reach the peak. That's why first ascents of new routes are the essence of mountaineering. The journey, not the destination, is the essence of the endeavor.

p.s. Whining when I make the obvious claim that you seem to know nothing about mountaineering is childish, and claiming that my tactics are "feminine" is obnoxiously sexist, since you clearly mean to imply there is something wrong with femininity. You may not mind insulting yourself, but your sexism denigrates Christianity. You might want to avoid that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The MSM in my opinion, and based on impression as I paid attention to the reporting at that time, received the news of this racial attack as another bit of evidence, and evidence as bolstering, the assertions being made that the Trump movement was a dark and dangerous threat to people of color and the nation.

I appreciate that was your impression at the time. Despite an honest search, I haven't found anything in the mainstream media that punches that impression on me. As I made clear to Immanuel Can, that might be my failure, but I am open to persuasion. Could you provide an example of what did it for you?

Of what precisely? In my last 2 posts I have outlined the areas that have been, and still are, of concern to me. I tried to give you a rounded sense of what I mean when I used the word *mendacious*. I think that if you wished to understand what I see more clearly -- again I outlined what I think that issue actually is -- you could examine the Lincoln Memorial incident of January 18, 2019 -- just a few days before the Smollett hoax.

Previously you wrote:

You could go some way to persuading me otherwise by engaging in a conversation that at least acknowledges that neither you nor I knows whether our interpretation of whatever facts we are presented to us is The Truth. Have a look around, it is the nutcases who know The Truth. It is as Bertrand Russell said: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

I have at least *gone some way* in presenting to you a description of what I mean about an unreliable, or slanted, or biased, or mendacious MSM. I think they (the media) have to be examined within a context and of course from some distance. I tried to demonstrate the ways in which the MSM serve a range of processes or perhaps I could say policies. And that the MSM operate, even if loosely, within a general social movement that according to my view -- call it interpretation if you wish -- can be described as 'social engineering'.

The word *interpretation* is not quite right because the cultural issue, the issue of social engineering, has more to do with *intention*. What are the intentions of those in the government, in the academy, and in media, and then what do we think about those intentions. Do we support them? Do we stand behind them? If we do we will then select the media that either supports or critiques that *intentions*.

So I disagree: I do know what my own *intentions* are (or my desired or *cherished* outcomes are or perhaps were) and therefore when I offer up a picture of what I think is going on -- is it exclusively interpretation? I do not think so.

it is the nutcases who know The Truth

I am uncertain who precisely you are referring to? What nutcases seem the most egregious in your sense?

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

Is there something wrong with "homeless wanderers".

Yes...because it's pointless, and you're not going anywhere. You just get to walk until you die.

We're all going to "end up" as a corpse somewhere.

Metaphorically only. As in, your ramble will come to grief, because you're not learning anything from it, and will die without ever having arrived at even a preliminary resting point. And in the end, the ramble runs out.

[Immanuel Can]

If the only reason to journey is to arrive somewhere, you will be disappointed.

You'll set out to get somewhere, and when you find you've arrived, you'll be disappointed? That's preposterous. The only reason you set out was in hope of arriving...and when you did, you were sad? Well, you planned the wrong trip, then.

The journey is its own destination.

Ugh. What a cliche...and an empty one, at that. Let's at least not lapse into commonplaces and outright absurdities. The most we can say is that sometimes a person enjoys the trip...but if they never arrive, the trip was a failure, ultimately...and they're dead.

The climber climbs to explore the route, not to reach the peak.

I have yet to meet a single climber who did that. But maybe you know another kind of oddball.

But again, the "peak" analogy you chose is just plain misleading. There is no "peak" of knowing everything -- at least, not for human beings. So the metaphor is poor. I reject it as a description of any "journey of knowing." It's inapt. It doesn't work.

...claiming my tactics are "feminine" is obnoxiously sexist,

Well, if it offends you, I'll say "thoroughly gamma," instead. That's more precise. Either way, it's weak, and you'd be more impressive if you didn't resort to that sort of lame ruse.

[Harbal]

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

Is there something wrong with "homeless wanderers".

Yes...because it's pointless, and you're not going anywhere. You just get to walk until you die.

To be a homeless wanderer might be the ideal lifestyle for someone who enjoys walking and wants to go nowhere in particular. And if someone finds that life satisfying, how is it less pointless than jumping on a treadmill just to make enough money to pay your mortgage?

[Gary Childress]

I prefer the "journey" analogy, which is always to a destination, or to various destinations along a longer route. Nobody journeys for NO reason, and with NO destination, and NO place of arrival...except a homeless wanderer, whose body ends up in the ditch somewhere, or on the frozen slopes of some mountain he thought to climb, but never found any place to stop.

Is there something wrong with "homeless wanderers".

Yes...because it's pointless, and you're not going anywhere. You just get to walk until you die.

What if life really is pointless? When we consume something, that thing is no longer available to another living being. It might even be another living being that we are consuming. When we occupy a piece of ground, that piece of ground is no longer available to another living being that needs space. If we win at something, then some other being must lose. What if that is all that life really amounts to fundamentally?

[Immanuel Can]

Is there something wrong with "homeless wanderers".

Yes...because it's pointless, and you're not going anywhere. You just get to walk until you die.

To be a homeless wanderer might be the ideal lifestyle for someone who enjoys walking and wants to go nowhere in particular. And if someone finds that life satisfying, how is it less pointless than jumping on a treadmill just to make enough money to pay your mortgage?

I think that, at this point, we've tortured the metaphor until it's screaming. Let the poor bugger die.

[Immanuel Can]

What if life really is pointless?

Talk to somebody who thinks that's true, I guess.

[Gary Childress]

What if life really is pointless?

Talk to somebody who thinks that's true, I guess.

Fair enough. Enjoy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

(Note : I am writing this suspended in a mountain climber’s portaledge (mountain climber’s suspended platform) half-way up the Matterhorn.)

Some here may appreciate this interesting interview with Thomas Rousseau.

I post this because I had mentioned Charlottesville, and because my belief is that it is important to hear what people of this orientation say about their own position — what it is and what it isn’t — as opposed to what other people say about it.

(Shit! I forgot my corkscrew!)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Esteemed Wilbur:

You may find this interview of former NYTs reported Nellie Bowles interesting and relevant.

Need I present you with an interpretation? I hope it is clear.

[Harbal]

Yes...because it's pointless, and you're not going anywhere. You just get to walk until you die.

To be a homeless wanderer might be the ideal lifestyle for someone who enjoys walking and wants to go nowhere in particular. And if someone finds that life satisfying, how is it less pointless than jumping on a treadmill just to make enough money to pay your mortgage?

I think that, at this point, we've tortured the metaphor until it's screaming. Let the poor bugger die.

I didn't realise it was a metaphor; I thought we were talking about a real homeless wanderer. I'm in a world of my own half the time.

[Gary Childress]

(Note : I am writing this suspended in a mountain climber’s portaledge (mountain climber’s suspended platform) half-way up the Matterhorn.)

Some here may appreciate this interesting interview with Thomas Rousseau.

I post this because I had mentioned Charlottesville, and because my belief is that it is important to hear what people of this orientation say about their own position — what it is and what it isn’t — as opposed to what other people say about it.

(Shit! I forgot my corkscrew!)

I watched about 15 minutes in and then skipped to the end.

In your own words, what important point are we supposed to glean from this interview? Are you a white American? Or what is your interest in all this? Is it to subvert civil society in the US? Get us all fighting each other over racial and ethnic differences? Who are you and what is your stake in what is going on in the US?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see you in a postmodern novel, Harbal. You start out on a walkabout. But can’t find the focus to cross the street. You forget why you set off and wind up in the corner cafe where you think things over for hours. Then you return, bewildered, to your flat. This goes on in various iterations — some slapstick, some of genuine bathos, for 28 chapters.