http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning Have you read this wikipedia entry?....There's a lot there that I didn't know. It definitely looks as though the poor (said sympathetically) guy was fighting his personal war on a whole lot of fronts... personal and political and otherwise....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg There is a precedent... I would say that Manning should be released without punishment.... but it appears that the "right" wants to make an example of him.....SHit-Headed sons of daughters of pigs and bitches... the Right.... Libertarianism..... License to Steal.... basically.... that's all they want.... on the social or civil rights side.... they are mostly totalitarian..... that's why I call them Fascists... totalitarian/capitalists.... but they manage to lie about their agenda and appeal to the naive and impressionable youth.... you know... the Fascists and Nazis have their appeal to the youthful "action" oriented... We could discuss morality more in depth....IMO, wherever it comes from.... there are some deeply held notions (at least for some), there... Rumor has it that "austerity" is about to break (collapse) in the Eurozone and Britain..... any truth to that? Changing of the "conservative" guard? http://www.cnbc.com/id/100705271 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/03/rbs-sell-off-close-down http://www.freep.com/article/20130502/BUSINESS/305020077/GM-reports-profits-865-million-1st-quarter http://rt.com/op-edge/ecb-refinancing-rate-oulds-748/ On Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:23:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > One could say Bradley Manning was in the same situation. Financial > cops should be nicking banksters. > I had a bit of a flirtation with libertarianism years back - as an > alternative to central planning. I didn't take it very far because I > could see the inevitable corruption and monopoly power of money. Much > of what we call morality is urged on us through work ethic and other > nonsense. > > On 30 Apr, 20:33, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I've thought about this "thematic" of "leadership " as I've run across > it > > in many "literary" contexts.... here's what I said about it (below) in a > > rudimentary " web online" analysis I did of the Grimm Snow White > > tale........ I don't view it as simply as a logical contraposition > between > > "leadership versus anarchy".....I don't think that theer is such a > logical > > contraposition, at all.... they are different logical questions > > altogether....There are different "leadership" siituations.... some are > > morally valid others are not.... just as there are different Opposition > to > > authority situations (anarchy).... again, some of which are morally > valid > > while others are not..... > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/humanities/nom... > > > But I want to treat this issue of power as it "may" relate to the > > story....You may recall that the queen "summoned" the huntsman and > > pretty much "told" him what to do to Snow White. The queen was in a > > position of "authority" over the huntsman.... what do you suppose his > > "status" was.... more than a plain "subject", I would think.... > > probably more like a Castle "officer" who was charged with > > participating in the hunts for game that may have served as either (or > > both) a pastime for the nobility or a means to stock up the castle > > larder with meat. So, when the queen told the hutsman to take Snow > > White and kill her.... well, I would think that the hutsman was > > "expected" to do it.... The relationship between them consisted of the > > queen's Authority( GOOD concept)/ to summon and command (GOOD > > reference) and the huntsman's Subordination (GOOD concept)/ to obey > > (GOOD reference). But what happens when the queen's moral compass > > points in the wrong direction?.... Then instead you get something like > > the queen's Tyranny (BAD concept)/ to compel (BAD reference) and the > > huntsman's Subjugation (BAD concept)/ to submit (BAD reference).Now. > > you can mix and match those "Applied Signs" in various ways, depending > > on if you want to logically "square them according to the single > > individual (queen "or" huntsman) or to the paired relationship (queen > > "and" huntsman) > > (queen) > > authority / order.............. tyranny / compel > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD/ > > > > BAD > > > > authority / compel..............tyranny / order > > BAD/ GOOD.......................BAD / BAD > > **** > > (huntsman) > > subordination / obey............subjugation / submit > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / BAD > > > > subordination / submit..........subjugation / obey > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / GOOD > > **** > > I want to get across the notion that there are two ways of > > doing(REFERENCE) the (almost) same thing and there are two ways of > > thinking(CONCEPT) about the (almost) same plan. The difference is in > > the details... details like, in this case, Snow White's "innocence". > > So, what happens in the story?....Here's what I think.... the huntsman > > was faced with a moral dilemma.... an "unethical" order from a > > "superior Officer" what should he have done???? here's my next "mixed" > > dialectic..... > > > > independence / rebel.......... servitude / acquiesce > > (?) / (?)......................(?) / (?) > > independence / acquiesce.......servitude / rebel > > (?) / (?)......................(?) /(?) > > We saw that the huntsman asserted his independence and rebelled....but > > he was still a subordinate or a subjugate to the queen.... what could > > he do? face the consequences? would he be punished? then? or > > nowadays?.... he chose to try to deceive the queen..... how did he do > > it and was that moral or ethical? > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:23:57 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > You make the points I think should be investigated Nom. To take > > > leadership as a given is nonsense - but so is the denial in full > > > anarchy. > > > > > On 26 Apr, 19:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > sport / compete........survival / cooperate > > > > > > sport / cooperate......survival / compete > > > > > > It's an actual old thematic dialectic I came up with analyzing a > play > > > > "Aminta" by Torquato Tasso in the 1980's....plug in your "ethical > > > > preferences" and go from there....If you value sport / compete as > "good > > > / > > > > good"... then by contrary necessity you have to value survival / > > > cooperate > > > > as "bad / bad"....etc....it all depends on point of view of moral or > > > > ethical predicated value....I agree that capitalist economics is > more > > > akin > > > > to a sport / compete situation.... the referees are definitely > > > beneficial > > > > in keeping the cheating and fouls in check.... but my broader point > > > is..... > > > > could a survival / cooperate template for economic activity be > better or > > > > more attuned (at least) to some situations.....that's a rhetorical > > > > question, of course... some say yes, others no.... but at least > > > recognize > > > > (or acknowledge openly) the range of option, I'd suggest.... > > > > > > leadership.... this gets into another set of thematic oppositions, > not > > > the > > > > least of which is the following > > > > > > freedom / choice.... dominance / compel > > > > > > freedom / compel....dominance / choice > > > > > > same thing... value one "course of action" option and the others are > > > also > > > > valued on the basis of contrariety... whatever your point of view... > > > > Leadership defined how?.....is my point here. There are situations > in > > > life > > > > and society where, perforce, a dominance / compel relation is made > to > > > > apply.... think military....chain of command.. orders being given by > > > > superior officers to subaltern soldiers.....but these military > > > conditions > > > > of "leadership" are extraordinary and are assumed to apply on the > > > > assumption (in civilized or moral countries) that the leadership > will > > > only > > > > make orders in and ethical manner (at least most of the > time)....but > > > how > > > > about business or economic leadership.... the tension to dominance > / > > > > compel there is greater and the ethical mandate more tenuous if even > > > > existent at all......... > > > > > > Great leaders.... ?..... me..... anarchist..... remember? ... but I > > > > acknowledge "reality"..... > > > > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 1:07:12 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > The Mussolini woman not quite my cup of visual tea. I did, many > moons > > > > > back have a dalliance with the daughter of a French fascist. The > > > > > bloke was actually very decent to me and helped with an inquiry - > > > > > amazing what he was able to shift out of my way. I think the pork > > > > > sword wanted to stay but I had a chance to make the minor counties > > > > > cricket team. > > > > > > > I'm fairly convinced on revolution and if the only 'victims' were > a > > > > > few bankers swinging from lamp-posts it would be a good thing for > the > > > > > greater good. They do enough violence to us through redundancy > and in > > > > > letting third world farmers die because a tractor has taken their > work > > > > > or they give up to debt through suicide (250,000 in India alone in > 10 > > > > > years). When it comes to such social experiment what price 92,000 > > > > > super rich against this? I think its time we took moral talk back > > > > > from sinecured Harvard professors and realised facts make oughts. > > > > > > > My problem with revolution is leadership. I'll spare you the crap > > > > > I've read that business schools and history produce. I've been > > > > > looking for a critical history of leadership and come up blank for > > > > > now. You can tell something is wrong when you ask people to list > > > > > great leaders - its rare anyone mentions anyone they actually met > or > > > > > whose brain I wouldn't summarily test with a lead projectile (or > two > > > > > to make sure). Quite a few come up with total myths from heroic > > > > > tragedy or religion. > > > > > > > One assumes we can only be conned in "appointing" tossers with > shell > > > > > shock trauma like Hitler - I read a book on how he was conjured up > > > > > recently (though I'm not sure we can swallow the idea it is an > Anglo- > > > > > American trick used to pit Germany against the USSR). I glanced > at a > > > > > list of British PMs since Walpole (a couple before too) and they > all > > > > > look like nondescript turkeys or villains of the elite like > Churchill, > > > > > Thatcher and Blair. I fancy a history of their crookery and > cronyism > > > > > would enlighten. I have Churchill and Blair as US spies - why do > > > > > novelists stick on such safe ground as the Da Vinci Code? Further > > > > > down the pecking order how do the stuffed shirts and crooks get to > > > > > lead our organisations generally? One survey of people going > through > > > > > INSEAD (French major business school) failed t find a single > instance > > > > > of a student not networked by nepotism or the 'royal route' > through > > > > > the best European schools, universities and grandes ecoles. > > > > > > > What one finds is all kinds of "leadership skills" bandied about > as > > > > > real but the connection I make is with religious lying (from gods > met > > > > > just past the second burning bush up the mountain trail on the > right, > > > > > the prophet we must not name who probably never existed and on to > the > > > > > salamander in hat). The only thing special about leaders (in this > > > > > sense) I've met as CEOs and so on is that they could give me > money, > > > > > let me stay in my job and so on. > > > > > > > In biology we can find leadership from insects up - indeed lower > than > > > > > that (algae) - but it's quite rare for the death of a leader to > cause > > > > > much trouble - one of the weedy proles just steps up to the mark, > even > > > > > if it has to change sex and grow (clown fish?) - vile king mouse > is > > > > > easily replaced by any male mouse you feed up and train to fight. > > > > > Elephants may be the exception in that the matriarch may have > many of > > > > > the memories of collective > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
