Comment: Goldspam: Enquiring Minds Want To Know

(See in situ)

Goldspam: Enquiring Minds Want To Know

The poet, Edgar Allen Poe admitted to becoming insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity. He wrote about scary and uncomfortable things, and since the short story I sought to introduce you to was all of that, and stranger than fiction, it is fitting I invoke his standard here:

"In criticism I will be bold, and as sternly, absolutely just with friend and foe. From this purpose nothing shall turn me."
-- Edgar Allan Poe

And so it is such poetic justice that moves me to return the favor of your criticism of my manners with an equally stern apology of my wing NUTS' theories which you summarily prejudge to reprove.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."

--ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, Parerga and Paralipomena

You will recall this was not the first occasion we've had friendly conversation on my invitation to enquiry.

... Speaking of enquiry, perhaps you'd like to know why the protracted delay in responding to your post? Well, I admit I'm not as snappy as some. When I get my snoot into something I like to root about. Truth told, (our general objective, right?) -- distractions only partly account for the interruption to my end of the conversation. I was frustrated by two separate equipment crashes, which you may be happy, mercifully truncated substantive portions of thoughts I intended to share with you. You see, my friend, there was a lot there from your post to address, and I find it all sufficiently sumptuous to feast upon. For instance, I looked into each of the matters you asked me to examine and intend to show you the courtesy of thorough attention to your side of the conversation as it all merits consideration from my viewpoint. I will now finally address at least in part the issues you raise without the convention of customary suck up forgoing preliminary parlor patty cake.

Incidentally, my enquiring mind wonders if you've found that the sabbatical from conversation afforded occasion for you to more than just acquaint yourself with the subject of looming cataclysmic systemic time bombs carried by Wall Street bag men, about which I sought to alert. I'm confident you will find it affects more than just daytraders the day the music stops on these pathological pipers calling the tunes for elevator music background to the shaft planned by the matrix that be.

" ... that which we created has become our master. I would rather give my Liberty to a benevolent dictator ...",

is the way you confess to the conceit embraced by you (and, incidentally, the neocons) as a political ideal.

In fact, you offer Plato's model to edify and urge I spend some time matriculating on the subject under your tutelage. Let me say we can agree Plato's philosophy has lessons worthy of studious attention, but I'll tell you, from perusing the syllabus, I'd come down more in accord with the conclusions of the Framers of THIS 'Republic' who sought to set over themselves and their posterity a Constitution under which they at least hoped to retain the rule of law, and not men, by erecting a system of checks and balances through formal separation of powers. Their design, we agree was less perfect than the Articles of Confederation it replaced, but both were still a deliberate rejection of the platonic ideal of the guardians which it seems you and the neocons endorse. Plato's and your pal's benevolent dictator theme was exactly the pretension that flowed through the French revolution, and into the 20th Century totalitarian ideologies, always to disastrous consequence.[Btw. Except for the stern poetic justice of the indictment, we could agree that the coincidence of some shared theories doesn't automatically discredit all your other views nor prove you to be a card carrying neocon. ]

Plato himself predicts how that dynamic plays out:

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he ipos a protector."
-- Plato

Ah ha ... The 'root', according to Plato. In fact Plato's Republic-cans throughout history have been expressly edified to exploit this very platonic maxim which Edmund Burke eventually summed up in these words:

"The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion."

Through the ages every benevolent dictator, schooled on Plato's methods, has made this part of their standard program:

"... a system which consciously bases its control of society on straightforward deception and treachery at the highest levels. If the Platonists only "talked" about creating external threats or merely exploiting them when they occurred, it would be worrying enough. But the evidence is mounting that they have done much much more than merely talk about them. The question is: Does the evidence yet support the widespread charges that: It's all a Conspiracy?

... given the nearly unbroken record of failure and corruption, why on earth do We The People still insist on believing that all we need are good "Leaders" ... "

But you should know this. You do a very apt job of summarizing the upshot of such Platonic philosophy in your Jekyll Island survey of history. I consulted even your original post and found the James Corbett podcast you criticize, 'The State Is Not Great', did an even better job of getting at the core of the very problem on which you and I and Rothbard agree ... But generally you 'get it':

Religion Of Statism

Here is the issue between us, however: it's the 'snug' comfort zone which keeps you from thinking outside the box of a closed, complacent world view that minimizes the role of those platonic idol/ideal-izers. The ones who wrap the box. (Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, especially those in fancy packages). Of course this is just my presumptuous opinion which I offer in a sincere spirit of friendship. I don't mean to condescend, but to ignore it would be to enable. I don't pretend to offer neatly packaged answers. Open enquiry is what I encourage.

The mind set I would challenge among any colleague who seeks to promote liberty you happen to display emblematically in this 'snug' box:

"... my “judgment” is never “snap” or “unseasoned”……but I can spot the conspiracy kook crap in an instant."

Well ... Could we at least agree there is some irony in this expression of your mind's set, perhaps consciously, though not to conscientiously? I chose the word 'snug' it seems in anticipation of your utterance. There's some undeniably serendipitous poetry in that description.

"... the mythopoietic function of the unconscious may be built into the human species ..." (and, I would submit, not just those of the breed who have been spared a reading disability).

I had more preachiness on this topic which your mind apparently finds so convoluted, but I'll eschew now that circumstances have conspired to let you off the hook twice in a row.

But I will invoke this mention of the evocative language you selected for your snark. You mock with self satisfied ridicule using the word "kook" for your reasoned analysis, to which most Ron Paul fans should be alert. In fact, that word was the sum and substance of your analysis, as it usually is for those who use the term. Here is how the very website defends itself from what can only be a mysterious out-of-body anticipation of your syllogistic critique -- "kook", you explained. This is how they sum up what they're about on the very page you reference:

"Do we really know what “unconscious mind” is and of what is it capable?
... we do not take anything as unquestionable truth. We take everything with a grain of salt, even if we consider that there is a good chance that it is truth. We are constantly analyzing this material as well as a great quantity of other material that comes to our attention from numerous fields of science and mysticism...
In a world where science and spirituality have ceased to complement each other in the search for meaning, we are still left pondering the questions: What is it to be truly human? Why is the world in the state it is? Why is there evil? Is our way of life the best one possible? What is the reality of higher worlds?"
"Is it reasonable to say that ALL [“superluminal communication”] is junk and nonsense? Well, the vast majority ... IS nonsense. Most of it is either incomprehensible mumbo jumbo, word salad, or more clever deception and disinformation, combined with high sounding words aimed at keeping people deluded and in their current miserable and oppressed state..."

And so these folks behind the website you summarily indict confess to "constructive curiosity" and share their research and musings on such, and other interesting topics which their provocative, open minds encounter. I admit to respect for such enquiry and likewise 'take it all with a grain of salt'. But to each, his own. That's just my eclectic omnivorous diet -- and the seasoning my mind prefers for it's snacks. So I pass the plate as we all might at any pot luck feast among those familiar with exchange at a Liberty round table. Packaged hors d'oeuvre on doilies are the unsatisfying dainty morsels served where political types gather.

I don't mind telling you on the occasion of any DP conversation among friends, I 'really' don't find such enquiry to be beyond reason. In fact I see the study of subjects addressing matters of the unconscious mind to be compatible with scientific method and consistent with rational thought.

Consider this example of 'kook theorem' rationalizing:

I wonder if you'll agree, minds functioning at such levels are unusual, yes, but such 'theorizing' should hardly merit snap denigration. Rather, such subjects may yet be the stuff of serious scholarship:

The language of the unconscious --poetry -- in particular is a sort of phenomenon, though more intangible, is no less real, and should be part of any hardy repast for those who seek well rounded sustenance, IMHO. It is the staff of life itself for those who aspire to live on more than bread alone. Such matter bearing on questions of epistemology, I submit are both the spice, ...

... and the meat and potatoes for non-'kookie' cutter lives; and I maintain is fitting food for thought and discussion here on DP.

I've always been a bit unconventional ( for example, I often take my salad after the meal and, realizing life is uncertain, have been known to reach for the dessert first ), and so I close on the giving of thanks [as those of us who suffer from afflictions of inverted manners might say] now with well wishes beyond conventions of mere happy talk and, exchanging true compliments before pushing back from the table, I salute you with ' bon appétit' and '¡buen provecho!'. May we each feel satisfied we are among family and friends, though we've had our disagreements. Not just strategically, I express my thanks for the exchange, and offer my genuine hope you find the investigation I endeavored to instigate at least partly fullfilling. I'm grateful for the edification this conversation has offered for my improvement. Thus, I do thank you.

PS. Can you tell what's on my open mind this week? ... Or maybe it's on your mind. That's subliminal communication ... It's poetry. Be -aware... and beware. You're open to it.
[If dyslexia sometimes interferes with reading the lines, what's disrupting you from reading between the lines? Friends don't let friends indulge predilections for counter-revolutionary conventions. ]

Happy Thanksgiving. ;-)