Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

Pluto wrote:No, this is going offtrack. interactions between people, face to face, by phone, email, etc, is not propaganda. The propaganda I speak of comes from the present owners of capitalist power directed at you and me. Entertainment today is political embodiment. Do you really think being surrounded in media 24/7 has no effect on your thinking?

No, it's not going offtrack at all.

You're anti-capitalistic, which is just fine, even though capitalism has brought people a far higher standard of living than any system you might favor. You are wrong to say that interactions between people are not propaganda. If the Ku Klux Klan communicates with the public, person to person, that is propaganda, my friend.

No not anti-capitalist, but interested in understanding the ways in which the power base of a society directs and controls the population. I favour no system. But under the present one I simply seek to know how it communicates to a populace. And then what this communication says about the system itself.

If the Ku Klux Klan communicates with the public, person to person, that is propaganda, my friend.

Okay. The person represents in his persuasion an ideology.

Pluto wrote:No not anti-capitalist, but interested in understanding the ways in which the power base of a society directs and controls the population. I favour no system. But under the present one I simply seek to know how it communicates to a populace. And then what this communication says about the system itself.

If you favor no political economic system, then what's your raison d'être?

If you favor no political economic system, then what's your raison d'être?

A political economic system is not the reason of my being. That would be odd. And too limited in scope. Life itself could be my, 'raison d'etre.' How can it be, etc. It is okay to not follow a political party or economic system. Yes?

Pluto wrote:

If you favor no political economic system, then what's your raison d'être?

A political economic system is not the reason of my being. That would be odd. Is it for you?

It's like you're looking at a colony of ants to see how they function. There's nothing wrong with that, but what's the point unless you have an interest in myrmecology.

bobevenson wrote:

Pluto wrote:

If you favor no political economic system, then what's your raison d'être?

A political economic system is not the reason of my being. That would be odd. Is it for you?

It's like you're looking at a colony of ants to see how they function. There's nothing wrong with that, but what's the point unless you have an interest in myrmecology.

You've described how power see it.

Again, what's your point? It's like you're examining the mechanics of a clock, but you don't have any interest in why the clock was built or what time it is.

bobevenson wrote:Again, what's your point? It's like you're examining the mechanics of a clock, but you don't have any interest in what time it is.

My point? does there have to be one. No, of course I have an interest in the time. It's like, first, where are the chains, and can they be removed.

Pluto wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Again, what's your point? It's like you're examining the mechanics of a clock, but you don't have any interest in what time it is.

My point? does there have to be one. No, of course I have an interest in the time. It's like, first, where are the chains, and can they be removed.

Since I'm from planet Earth, you're going to have to explain that to me.

Describing Argo film as hate crime
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/9047

http://dulltools.bandcamp.com/album/light-up-gold

No, I mean I don't understand "It's like, first, where are the chains, and can they be removed."

bobevenson wrote:No, I mean I don't understand "It's like, first, where are the chains, and can they be removed."

Okay, right. What is it that limits or distorts. Channels thinking. How do I come to think as I do. What's the program. Can you side-step your conditioning, etc. These kind of things.

Holy shit, I try to get clarification and you throw mud in my face.

No not mud, I'm trying to give you it clear but deep(er). Sounds pretentious, a bit. What you think I'm talking about, is it. Clarification would only lead to a watering down and weakening of its power (a trap). Like explaining a joke. Language has been destroyed, shelled out, hollowed. You've got to be careful.

Pluto wrote:No not mud, I'm trying to give you it clear but deep(er). Sounds pretentious, a bit. What you think I'm talking about, is it. Clarification would only lead to a watering down and weakening of its power (a trap). Like explaining a joke. Language has been destroyed, shelled out, hollowed. You've got to be careful.

If somebody tells me a joke, and I don't understand it, I don't think the joke teller is watering down the joke by explaining it to me.

bobevenson wrote: If somebody tells me a joke, and I don't understand it, I don't think the joke teller is watering down the joke by explaining it to me.

Okay, but if the joke teller explains the joke it isn't a joke anymore, it is a broken-down description of the mechanics of the joke, the workings, the why. Anyway, the sentence you highlighted "where are the chains and can they be removed" is pretty self-explanatory no. It'd be good if you said what you think it means. Then I could talk about it like that.