[RC] [ RC ] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -continued

[Billy Rojas]

Chris:

Something else you may wish to think about


Why isn't "mama's boy syndrome" regarded as a mental illness?

It seems clear to me that is exactly what it is.  The whole arrangement is sick.

It does no-one any good except in terms of false (delusional) solutions to 
serious problems.

It damages everyone else in a family and, also, isn't good in any way for the 
community.


The APA does not classify it as a disorder even though that is exactly what it 
is.

But, then, the APA does not classify homosexuality as  a mental illness either 
(not since

the mid 2000s has any form of homosexuality been regarded as problematic.  As 
late

as ca. 1998 it was still an illness in the DSM, called ego-dystonic 
homosexuality,

when a pervert was personally unhappy with his (or her) condition. Now even

that is gone.)


Look at all the harm this has done to society, plus countless individual lives.

Many psychiatrists back in the later 1970s were alarmed at what could happen

when this stuff began, viz, declassification, and they were right.  Our entire 
culture

is in a worsening mess.


You know, prayer simply isn't sufficient to deal with this issue,with any 
mental health issue.

You  -anyone-  needs to study psychology.  But how many Christians ever do so?


Sure, prayer can be a good thing, but to take the view, "I'm praying about it, 
that is all

I need to do, and besides, what will my friends think if I become informed about

homosexuality?-  is very ill-advised.  Or about mama's boys, or about 
drug-addicted people,

or about sexual abuse victims, or about many other kinds of people.


I am grateful to the Nth degree in knowing Evangeline.  She is a Christian like 
few others.

A sincere follower of Jesus Christ. But her answer to nearly every challenge is 
prayer

and forgiveness-on-principle.  Bless her precious heart, but because this is 
her view

there are things she gets hopelessly wrong and never understands what is going 
on.


This is the problem with Pietism, fixation on a small part of the Bible, not on 
trying

to grasp the meaning of the book in its entirety., which is a whole 'nuther 
matter.  As if,

in reading the Sermon on the Mount, everything else in Matthew consists of 
footnotes

with  little value.  As if all you need is self-referential study when you do 
read the Bible

as if books outside the Bible,  about psychology and faith, are worthless, as 
if historical

research articles about the Bible and its meaning in the context of when it was 
written

have no value, as if you can't possibly derive much good from reading the Bible 
as

a book filled with ideas that reflect a range of kinds of understanding best 
illustrated

by comparing it with great literature of the Roman world, say, or with writings 
of

19th century European authors like Dostoevsky.


But most of all I'd like to stress the intersection of faith and psychology.


Anyway, it is as clear as anything can get that mama's boy syndrome is a 
psychological

disorder, both for the mama's boy and for the warped and dysfunctional mother.

Yet the APA treats it as a non-issue.


Try finding solid information on the subject on the Web. I sure looked, and 
looked hard.

There is a good deal of stuff by people who don't really know what they are

talking about but there is hardly anything written by certified experts.

There needs to be a psychology of motherhood.  Some women do extremely well at 
it.
Others are hopelessly inadequate.  We cannot continue to regard motherhood
as some sort of guarantee that mothers are all good. Some are ridiculously off 
the rails.
If we are going to use the Bible as a guide we had better get the whole story,
not just the parts that serve some preferred narrative that makes us feel good.


Billy




From: Billy Rojas
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 9:38 AM
To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 1 (of 3 parts) *


Chris:
Thanks for the reply.


As a writer, your comment that it is "rough to read" is important to me.

Could you explain something of what you mean?


Were you referring to the writing itself or the subject matter?


About the subject matter, self disclosure is more-or-less a genre.

All kinds of books have taken this approach. Maybe the best known

was "Mommy, dearest, " about Joan Crawford, written by her daughter.

The famous actress, it seems, was worse than my mother in a lot of ways.

And that is saying  a great deal, indeed.


I also tried to make the story compelling as writing.


The risk is that non-writers may not get the idea.  A writer tells a story.

He does so to the best of his ability, in a way that will hopefully get the

attention of the reader and raise questions, get thought processes flowing,

and maybe inspire self reflection.  So, yes, this is self-disclosur

Re: [RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 1 (of 3 parts) *

[Billy Rojas]

Chris:
Thanks for the reply.


As a writer, your comment that it is "rough to read" is important to me.

Could you explain something of what you mean?


Were you referring to the writing itself or the subject matter?


About the subject matter, self disclosure is more-or-less a genre.

All kinds of books have taken this approach. Maybe the best known

was "Mommy, dearest, " about Joan Crawford, written by her daughter.

The famous actress, it seems, was worse than my mother in a lot of ways.

And that is saying  a great deal, indeed.


I also tried to make the story compelling as writing.


The risk is that non-writers may not get the idea.  A writer tells a story.

He does so to the best of his ability, in a way that will hopefully get the

attention of the reader and raise questions, get thought processes flowing,

and maybe inspire self reflection.  So, yes, this is self-disclosure,

but the larger issue is:  As a story, is it good reading?


Sort of like surgery.  Yes, the process is a bloody mess. But I'm more 
interested

in whether the patient survived and is still among the living.


You can also look at it in terms of a psychological case study.

What if you were called in to counsel a family like the one described in the 
story?


Billy




From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 7:25 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 1 (of 3 parts) *


You are going deep into your family history Billy.  It is kind of tough to 
read, but thanks for sharing.

Chris



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Billy Rojas
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:31 PM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: [RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 1 (of 3 parts) *







 Part # 1 (of 3 parts)



 Story of a Dysfunctional Family





What happened to Baby Bob?



In December of 2015 I wrote an essay about the dysfunctional family

that I have endured during my life.  The saga ended with a question

about the youngest sibling, Robert, now in his sixties, "what will he do next?"



Not everyone who reads this essay will have read that previous material

so there will be some amount of repetition in this paper in order for new 
readers

to make sense of the story.  But, in brief, the narrative concerned

the family I grew up with, starting in Chicago many years ago.  It ended with

mother's death in Eugene, Oregon, in July of 2015, three years ago.



A number of salient facts were unknown to me in December of 2015; some of my

comments at that time were based on facts that, had they been known to me at 
the time,

would have been treated quite differently in that essay.  I was still under the

impression that my half-brother, Robert, whom I now regard as my former brother,

was capable of somehow making a serious break with his past and starting his 
life

over again, this time trying to be rational about what he was doing.

Unfortunately my supposition could not have been more wrong.



It was based on another supposition that has also proven to be painfully in 
error,

that my sister Rita was as smart and moral as I had given her credit for. In 
fact,

the paper presents Rita as the one "rock" of sanity and truthfulness  in

the family, someone always with good intentions at heart. Which, thinking

about the years before 2015, especially before about 2012, was an altogether

reasonable conclusion to reach. But, again, I had made a mistake. Rita turned 
out

to be almost as dishonest as Robert , lacking a certain kind of integrity that

makes respect possible. For I have lost respect for her, not just for Robert.



Maybe I should have anticipated how things turned out.  In December of 2015

my comments about the parasite she lived with for 30 years, a worthless piece of

s___t (you can fill in the blank easily enough)named Richard,  who had almost 
no talent

of any kind, whose brainpower at maximum could not have  powered a 15 watt 
light bulb,

all of which alienated literally everyone else in the family. Everyone, even 
mother who,

otherwise, gave Rita every possible benefit of doubt.  This should have told me 
to expect

the worst but, alas, it did not. Until 2015 when thinking about Rita I 
habitually remembered

the good things she had done over the years, of which there were many. But that 
era

had come and gone even if, three years ago, I was unaware of the fact.



This paper is written to clarify some statements made in 2015.  I no longer feel

any debt of obligation to Rita.  What she has done,  which took me until well

into 2016 to finally recognize for what it was, which took me until this year

to come to terms with all of the implications,  is inexcusable and quite

literally is criminal in character.  This does not rise to the level of the

c

[RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 3 (conclusion) *

[Billy Rojas]

other reason than thatit enables you to stop making an 
on-going

stupid mistake.


I also told her that I did not have a answer to her predicament, her wanting to 
do

nothing but good for Robert's sake,  yet now acting as hostess to a criminal

who has never taken responsibility for his criminality.  She was unwilling

to deal with the ugly side of Robert in early 2016 and remains unwilling to do 
so now.

How does that kind of attitude make any sense?  It doesn't.  Instead it creates

problems of its own as Rita needs to live with a lie, with  the many lies 
perpetrated

by Robert,  and, hence, with a pathological liar.  She has created a mess for 
herself

and she really should know better.


There is no way to excuse that kind of poor judgment.


Rita is worth so much more, or she could be worth so much more.  Because of 
Robert

she is destroying herself.  Maybe someone   -besides me-  will tell her.



--




Billy Rojas

Eugene, Oregon

July 20, 2018
















-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Story of a Dysfunctional Family -Part # 1 (of 3 parts) *

[Billy Rojas]

 Part # 1 (of 3 parts)

 Story of a Dysfunctional Family



What happened to Baby Bob?


In December of 2015 I wrote an essay about the dysfunctional family

that I have endured during my life.  The saga ended with a question

about the youngest sibling, Robert, now in his sixties, "what will he do next?"


Not everyone who reads this essay will have read that previous material

so there will be some amount of repetition in this paper in order for new 
readers

to make sense of the story.  But, in brief, the narrative concerned

the family I grew up with, starting in Chicago many years ago.  It ended with

mother's death in Eugene, Oregon, in July of 2015, three years ago.


A number of salient facts were unknown to me in December of 2015; some of my

comments at that time were based on facts that, had they been known to me at 
the time,

would have been treated quite differently in that essay.  I was still under the

impression that my half-brother, Robert, whom I now regard as my former brother,

was capable of somehow making a serious break with his past and starting his 
life

over again, this time trying to be rational about what he was doing.

Unfortunately my supposition could not have been more wrong.


It was based on another supposition that has also proven to be painfully in 
error,

that my sister Rita was as smart and moral as I had given her credit for. In 
fact,

the paper presents Rita as the one "rock" of sanity and truthfulness  in

the family, someone always with good intentions at heart. Which, thinking

about the years before 2015, especially before about 2012, was an altogether

reasonable conclusion to reach. But, again, I had made a mistake. Rita turned 
out

to be almost as dishonest as Robert , lacking a certain kind of integrity that

makes respect possible. For I have lost respect for her, not just for Robert.


Maybe I should have anticipated how things turned out.  In December of 2015

my comments about the parasite she lived with for 30 years, a worthless piece of

s___t (you can fill in the blank easily enough)named Richard,  who had almost 
no talent

of any kind, whose brainpower at maximum could not have  powered a 15 watt 
light bulb,

all of which alienated literally everyone else in the family. Everyone, even 
mother who,

otherwise, gave Rita every possible benefit of doubt.  This should have told me 
to expect

the worst but, alas, it did not. Until 2015 when thinking about Rita I 
habitually remembered

the good things she had done over the years, of which there were many. But that 
era

had come and gone even if, three years ago, I was unaware of the fact.


This paper is written to clarify some statements made in 2015.  I no longer feel

any debt of obligation to Rita.  What she has done,  which took me until well

into 2016 to finally recognize for what it was, which took me until this year

to come to terms with all of the implications,  is inexcusable and quite

literally is criminal in character.  This does not rise to the level of the

criminality perpetrated by Robert, but it was  bad enough.


This is also written to make it as clear as possible that anyone, in the future,

who may think that one way to "get on my good side," might be through

any members of my family, would be mistaken.  With the exception of my niece,

who has no responsibility for anything  discussed here,  I want nothing to do

with any of them  -in perpetuity.  Whatever good things I once wanted to

do for them in the past, should it happen that I might finally become

financially successful,  I no longer have the  least interest in doing.

Each of them, Rita, Robert, and Ramona, can go to hell.



Should it happen that I do not make it to the finish line, so to speak,

I do not want any of them to have any of my belongings, and none have

any valid claim to my estate  -to my art or my writings or game designs

or anything else of  economic value.  That all came to and end no later

than some time in 2017 when I finally figured out the criminality

involved in what Rita did acting on behalf of Robert, starting

in January of 2016.  In the case of Ramona, we are in fundamental

disagreement on all social issues that matter and I am vehemently

opposed to her sick and dysfunctional homosexual 'lifestyle.'

She is a huge embarrassment to me and I wish it  was possible to

completely forget her.  Basically she is a disgrace to the family name.




-



About mother, several matters should be made totally clear.  Among them is the 
fact

that she wasn't always the mess she became during the last years of her life,

her late 80s and her 90s  -she died at age 95.  Evangeline, who knew mother

more-or-less well, and who volunteered to help her with a number of basic

life needs like getting her medications and the like, once said that mother

ended up as a demented old woman.  That, is seems to me, is completely

accurate.  The only thing to add is that mother

[RC] Aircraft carriers on dry land

[Billy Rojas]

Centroids:

What might have been


Some time ago I had an idea that, it seemed crystal clear, could earn someone a 
lot of money.

Maybe, if that had come to pass, I might garner a little money for myself as a 
result.


I was thinking strictly in terms of passenger automobiles. Simply put, treat 
the roof

of a car as a sort of "flight deck" for use by a drone.


Primarily this has to do with driving in mountainous terrain, viz., the 13 
states that

include large swaths of Appalachia, and the 10 large states of the West where

many roads take you through the Rocky Mountains, Cascades, Sierra Nevada, etc.

The direct market would be about 1/ 3rd of all drivers in the United States.

There could be secondary markets like the Ozarks, Maine, and Upper Michigan.


The concept is simple, with a drone you could, in effect, see around corners,

viz, around curves on winding mountain highways.  That would mean

better driving safety, optimal speeds, and far less headaches.

And drone technology is becoming ubiquitous, with micro-aircraft

getting cheaper all the time, and more reliable.  Uses are now widespread

in agriculture, forestry, environmental monitoring, and for security purposes.




Unfortunately no-one I sent the concept to at the time had any interest in the 
idea.

In effect my idea went into the circular file. "What does Billy know about cars

or drones? It isn't a practical idea, no-one would be interested. Besides,

I have other things to do."  Rationalize it all away, in other words.

Put defense of one's ago before common sense or forethought.



I imagine this was a fairly typical response.



However, an important "customer" got the idea and is now running with it:
The US military.  Front line tanks are now being outfitted with drones.

Maybe you saw the story on the news last night.


I was wrong in focusing only on passenger cars.  Drones could be very helpful

for long distance trucks, for buses, for boats of many kinds,  and for ranch 
vehicles.


Well, someone is now poised to make a fortune from combining vehicles with 
drones.

Unfortunately no-one gave a damn when I first had the idea and shared it with 
others.

It would have been win/ win.  But for some people if the idea comes from Billy

the best thing to do is ignore it and come up with a dozen reasons why

it is impractical, not needed, and unimportant.


I have gotten rather sick and tired of that kind of dysfunctional response.


Here is a case where I came up with a "million dollar idea" and recent 
developments

have proven me right. For all the good it does me.



Billy
















-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Why I am a Radical Centrist -new *

[Billy Rojas]

Why I am a Radical Centrist


By: Billy Rojas



The most compelling reason to be a Radical Centrist is because it is

the best political philosophy for anyone who values truth above falsehood,

against the many false claims of the parties of either the Left or the Right.


This is not the place to analyze the political platforms of Democrats or 
Republicans

or anyone else. Rather, this is a personal statement about the value of various 
political

outlooks.  It would certainly be possible to dissect those points-of-view to 
good effect,

to demonstrate their weaknesses and fallacies, plus discussing their strengths, 
but that

is not the objective here. This is written for anyone who already has done 
something

like this, who has become unhappy and dissatisfied with a political party yet 
knows,

deep inside, that the other major party, or any relevant "third party," is just 
as bad

in its characteristic way and is not a political option.


Where do you turn?


My answer to the question is Radical Centrism.  There is no "Radical Centrist 
Party"

but there is a Radical Centrist philosophy of politics and government and this 
is

what makes the most sense to me, and which has done so starting within a few 
years

from the time I discovered "RC" in 1995.


Radical Centrism is a political outlook primarily intended for Independent 
voters

although "centrist" Democrats or centrist Republicans may identify with it.

Someone who does so overtly is Mark Warner, Democratic senator from Virginia.

Someone who fits the description of  a Radical Centrist but does not identify

with RC is Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine. There are others,

including several Independents now in office, but these two examples

should give you an idea.


However,  this is only for purpose of starting a conversation on the subject.

There are several kinds of Radical Centrists and the version I identify with

is the most radical and the most perplexing for most centrists.


This is not a matter of compromise toward a mushy middle.  This is not some kind

of "moderate" political philosophy although on some issues  -"it depends"-

we may arrive at a moderate position as the best alternative.  Instead  RC

as I understand it, and as others of my general persuasion understand it,

is all about taking uncompromising "hard" stands on issues.  Hence we

are radical; there is nothing "soft" about the positions taken by a

Radical Centrist.  It is also all about "putting your money where your

mouth is," about having a  backbone, and about taking stands on principle.


What makes all of this centrist is is balance.  Basic to RC is the view, taken

as unarguable truth, that the parties of the American Left and the American 
Right

would not exist unless parts of their platforms were good and true.  It may be 
that

most of their platforms are unacceptable to any rational human being, that parts

are morally reprehensible, nonetheless there is something good to be found

and it would be ridiculous not to identify that good for what it actually is.

When you do this the only valid course of action is to take a stand for

what is right, not to retreat one inch, and to fight for that right

if it is necessary.


However, it is the viewpoint of Radical Centrists that if we are at all honest'

about things there should be something of parity between Left and Right

in the issues we champion. While we are seldom formal about it,

by and large, out of, say, 10 important issues, we will favor maybe

4 that most people would think of as liberal, another 3 or 4 that most people

would think of as conservative, and 2 or 3 as unclassifiable, maybe

original with  us, maybe original with environmentalists or with

constitutionalists, in any case, not identifiable as Democratic

or Republican, or as liberal or conservative.


However, each issue is held with real conviction, not half-heartedly.

This is not about "triangulation" or anything of the sort; it is about

taking moral stands as if your life depended on doing so.  Just like

any "true believer."  What is different about RC is that we regard

the current mix of issues promoted by Republicans as an absurdity

and the current mix of issues supported by Democrats as another

absurdity.  There is no necessity, none whatsoever, for taking

party platforms as "bibles" free of all error, no mistakes in them,

nothing questionable, that must be obeyed as if God on High

commands people to do so. As far as Radical Centrists are concerned

that kind of viewpoint is ridiculous.


There is a caveat: Any issue you advocate in public should be researched.

You need to know what you are talking about.  You need to be well informed

on that issue so that others might be persuaded of the truth, or begin to see

something good where, until then, the good was invisible 

Let's try this again Re: Phone call Mon 4:30 Re: [RC] Science of Culture

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Sorry I wasn't around Monday at 4: 30 PM.

Also, given the format of Rackspace's inbox, which is still confusing to me.

I  didn't even see your reply until this evening..


Think I will stick with Rackspace because it allows me to use Times New Roman

and has some nice features, but compared to "old AOL" it isn't in the same 
ballpark.

One more tech company that appeals to techies and everyone else can take a hike.


I am in the process of putting together a list of questions for David W.

Such as-


  *Does Wordpress allow me to use Times New Roman?

  *Can I import text from my e-mails via a clipboard or do I need

to retype everything?

  *Is there an image editor in the WP system that allows me to crop images

and do such things as rotate a photo or adjust brightness?


Etc, these are important questions for me. Cross that out, these are vital 
matters

My guess is that these kinds of questions are meaningless to you.


Thinking about it, I really need an image editor / text editor to do the kind 
of work

that I want to do.  Rackspace has a few such functions, more than "new AOL,"

but not nearly as many as "old AOL."



Among the questions for David W. are a set of inquiries about a menu function

(aka Table of Contents) and easy-to-use navigation.  What I'd like to do is 
load up

the site with my RC writings and RC visuals.



Off the bat, the idea is to highlight the book, but clearly if I have a 
brainstorm

I would need to be able to post it somewhere because you have different 
priorities.

Maybe Barry can help me with the horse race idea, I don't know, but if it is 
going

to be done it is up to me to somehow do what needs doing.  Some kind of Rube 
Goldberg

solution inasmuch as my system, Windows 7, is already more-or-less an antique.

Think that I can work around my limitations if  Barry (or someone) can help

with the soundtrack and a few sound effects.



Will let you know how my get-together with DW turns out.


Billy




From: Centroids 
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 8:39 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Phone call Mon 4:30 Re: [RC] Science of Culture

Hi Billy,

If you are frustrated, we should talk on the phone. This is impossible to 
resolve the email

I can do a call today Monday at 4:30. Will you be around?

Ernie





Frustrated in Oregon

BR



PS

Very frustrated.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: Promoting values Re: COMMENTS ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4 -continued

[Billy Rojas]

Chris:

We need you, that's for sure.  I hope that some day we can meet in person

and talk about the human dimension of RC at real length. About this aspect

of our shared worldview, we have not done nearly enough.


Billy



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:01 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: RE: Promoting values Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] COMMENTS ‘A Failure of 
Nerve’: Part 4 -continued


“To promote the value of “truth”, we have to demonstrate that we value the 
truth that others bring more than our own egos…”



Well said Ernie.  When I do brainstorming in mediations, I try to set up a 
non-defensive atmosphere that allows an honest discussion to get to the core 
issues (not prior positions).  One of my introductory statements is that “there 
is such a thing as a bad idea”; meaning, the idea may not be the ultimate 
solution to the subject of the mediation.  If someone presents and idea, in 
truth and not as a demand, a basis of constructive communication is created.  
Without speaking truthfully and listening with humility, agreements are likely 
to be unsatisfying and non-durable.



Chris



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Centroids
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 9:36 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: Promoting values Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] COMMENTS ‘A Failure of Nerve’: 
Part 4 -continued



Billy et al,



So, how do we promote the value in telling the truth?

Funny enough, I just wrote a blog post about that in a very different context:



https://2transform.us/2018/07/07/lesson-5-6-courage-anjalis-catechism/

[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/ec2bad016854ebc1e38f9a949905c26e?s=200&ts=1531159986]<https://2transform.us/2018/07/07/lesson-5-6-courage-anjalis-catechism/>

Lesson 5/6 Courage (Anjali’s Catechism) | Radically 
Happy<https://2transform.us/2018/07/07/lesson-5-6-courage-anjalis-catechism/>
2transform.us
Faith: Wise Risk It would be wonderful if everyone knew how to find real 
happiness, glory, and relationships by believing in the same God Jesus did. 
However, believing in God is not learning a fact…




The short answer is that this problem can only be solved -relationally-.



To promote the value of “truth”, we have to demonstrate that we value the truth 
that others bring more than our own egos, in order to persuade them to let go 
of their egos enough to face the truth they don’t want to deal with.



Otherwise, truth just becomes a proxy for power...



E



PS For the record, that is my main gripe with the BlackLivesMatter movement. 
Many of those supporters want to use the facts of black deaths to shame white 
people and ignore the truth that Police Lives Matter too. It is a selective 
self-serving view of Truth.



One we ourselves have to go through great pains to avoid...



E



--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] COMMENTS ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4 -continued

[Billy Rojas]

Re: Edwin Friedman


There is more to say about this article than I did in my response to it so far.


Below are a few quotes from the article that deserve some reflection;

there are also a few quotes from the "comments" section that are

worth thinking about.


To be able to think rationally about such subjects, however, requires

toleration for truth, or, better, giving truth high priority.  This may sound 
peculiar

but it shouldn't;  most people prefer to believe in convenient fictions that

are supportive of their biases and if some truth clashes with their bias

then that truth must be ignored or even denied.


You see this on both the Right and the Left.  For example, while there

are climate change deniers aplenty on the Right, the Left has its equivalent

in vaccine deniers, those who claim that vaccines cause autism. Such claims,

either Right or Left, are empirical. Solid real world evidence should settle

the matter. But it does not because, to further use  the example, zealots for

climate change tend to exaggerate the problem, hence all kinds of

bad science in support of the concept of global warming which

is bad enough without  lying about it.  This bad science receives

the opprobrium it deserves and as a result it damages its own cause.



To refer again to the panel discussion on C-Span about social media

and false information,  the problem is serious and seems to be getting worse.

There even is the rare but real phenomenon of people becoming better informed

yet doubling down on their dysfunctional views.


One problem with Friedman's essay, and with the comments that follow,

besides the fact that the language starches your shirt as you read it,

is the fact that nothing can penetrate anyone's skull if he or she

does not value the truth. This matter must be dealt with before

the other issues and insights in the essay can make any difference.


OK, how do you promote truth as a necessary value?  You'd think this would be

a primary goal of RC  And maybe it is, but it sure does not receive

much emphasis. Still, our problems in this area are close to zero

in comparison with partisans of Left and Right  -where truth

is always optional.

So, how do we promote the value in telling the truth?


Billy



-

"The more empathic we are, the more that we discourage responsibility
and growth to maturity."

"The kind of “sensitivity” that leaders most require is a sensitivity to the 
degree
of chronic anxiety and the lack of self-differentiation in the system that 
surrounds them."


"They need to learn to be self-regulating and accountable, and our attempts
to be empathic achieve little in this regard."

---


"Self-differentiated persons, while seeking to speak the truth, will not do so 
in a manner
that is invasive. They do not seek to offend, even though they sometimes will,
but to speak the truth..."


"...if evangelical approaches to evangelism and relationships with the world 
tend
to risk being reactive and invasive, liberal and post-evangelical approaches
in this area are frequently characterized by a dangerous sensitivity. This 
sensitivity
produces a loss of theological nerve and a compromising of orthodoxy to make it
more palatable to people who would never ‘adapt’ to it."


"A primary focus upon reasoning or empathizing with the world will always tend
towards a compromising the integrity of the Church and its message. On account
of its low threshold for the pain and offense of others, liberal Christianity 
has always
struggled to maintain integrity in its faith, and has always been vulnerable to 
the
false guilt-manipulation and rights-driven discourse that encourages
the spread of un-self-regulated parties."


"Dysfunctional persons, driven purely by a sense of entitlement, expect society
to adapt to them. Sensitive liberals, who have an extremely low pain threshold
for people suffering the consequences of their actions, produce
a leadership without nerve."


[we should] ...
"focus more upon the strengths of those in need in society, rather than their 
pathologies,
and upon their capacity for self-differentiating and self-regulating action. It 
seems to me
that this is a wonderful 
example<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/out-of-poverty-family-style/>
 of the sort of approach that Friedman’s insights
would encourage. Rather than underwriting pathologies, resources would be 
channelled
towards the strengths whereby communities will be able to address and
overcome their pathologies."




________
From: Billy Rojas
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 1:40 AM
To: Centroids Discussions
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: [ RC ] COMMENTS ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4



Not sure what to make of this article.  I think I get the main point(s) well 
enough,

but also

[RC] Science of Culture

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:
This is exasperating, seriously exasperating.


Back in the 1950s my friend Bernie highly recommended a book

that was originally published in 1949, by U of Michigan professor,

Leslie White, The Science of Culture.  I purchased a paperback edition
from maybe 1955 or thereabouts. White's thesis has been with me ever since.


Here are some plaudits by an assortment of academics, etc, that should give you

some idea of the value of the book; skip reading them if you want

but at least look over the paragraph:


Leslie White was one of the most important and controversial figures in American

anthropology. This classic work, initially published in 1949, contains White's 
definitive

statement on what he termed "culturology." In his new prologue to this reprint 
of

the second edition, Robert Carneiro outlines the key events in White's life and 
career,

especially his championing of cultural evolutionism and cultural materialism. 
Praise from

readers "Republishing these pioneer articles now makes White's fundamental 
exposition

easily available to a new generation of social scientists." Richard N. Adams, 
University

of Texas "One of the best works ever produced by an anthropologist. White was a 
remarkable

thinker and his writings were filled with 'intellectual content.'" Lewis R. 
Binford, Southern

Methodist University "The enduring foundation of a science of culture is made 
supremely

accessible thanks to the lucidity of White's writing." Robert Bates Graber, 
Truman State

University "Written with a straightforward crispness. A welcome treat in an age

when obscurity is often confused with profundity." David Kaplan, Brandeis 
University...



There have been several editions in the years following, most recently in 2005.


Not that you can't pick a few bones with Dr White, but his main contention is 
hardly

arguable, namely, that any hot idea simply cannot remain any one person's 
property.

This is because of the dynamics of culture.  Ideas emerge "from the air," so to 
speak,

viz, from shared culture, and implications of even the germ of a new concept as 
it

becomes known when people talk about the ideas they encounter, or that follow

from implications of those ideas.  In other words, this seems to be the first

appearance of the"meme" concept even if it was not called that back in

the Eisenhower era.



Think of something as complicated as the calculus.  Newton invented it.

Or did he?  Unbeknownst to him, Leibniz was working on a parallel track and

also came up with the calculus at about the same time. Doubtless there were

still other deep thinkers at work on similar projects of their own, its just 
that

none of these "would be" calculus inventors needed to complete

their labors when news of Newton and Leibniz became known.


It is this way in just about every field.   The story of calculus is merely the

best known example of the effect.  White provided examples from a

variety of fields, medicine, engineering, philosophy, you  name it.

My hunch is that the exact same phenomenon exists within

the field of high tech, whether hardware inventions or

new kinds of software.


But you seem to be operating on the obsolete assumption that if you have

a hot idea and can't develop it now, all you need to do is hide it in
the basement and it will be there for you to exploit in 5 years
or 15 years, it doesn't matter. It is your brainchild, no-one else

can possibly have the same idea. It is safe with you.



That way of thinking is dysfunctional.  And its basic premise is false.

If you wait any length of time someone else inevitably will
come up with the same idea or something very similar.


The imperative is to be "first to market."


Why on earth isn't this obvious to you?


Maybe because it contradicts a theory you have about 10 year plans,

that you have all the time in the world and things can be taken care of

at some date that is personally convenient.  After all, no-one else

can possibly  have "your" idea,


But think of RC.  It was reinvented several times since the idea
was first dreamed up in ca. 1980.



This is part #1.






Part # 2 concerns the value of a viral video.


What is a viral video worth?  It depends, of course.

At a minimum it gives fame to the originator.  Many viral videos

don't lead to much else, sometimes we are discussing someone

who caught a lucky break with little or no sense of how to exploit

the video to best effect.


But, hell, what couldn't either of us do with a viral video?

With some serious thought such a video would provide you, or me,

with a fulcrum, a fixed point to move the world.


It isn't possible to accurately predict viral videos, there are too many 
variables,

but I think it is fair to say that the horse race idea at least has a chance to

go viral, all the ingredients are there.  And producing it would be fairly

straight-forward and cheap.


Heck, I'd do it all by myself except that my

[RC] Re: [ RC ] Viral Belmont

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Uhhh, the idea is to make use of an existing movie, a horse race video

that is in the public domain. All we would need to do is create

a new sound track.


True, it really should be thought through, to get everything right,

but that part of the process is fairly easy and does not take a lot of time.

And this is to discuss just 5 minutes or so of video, no big elaborate 
production.


The tricky part would be to find a good quality public domain video.

Even that should not be very difficult, just that it might take

some time.


With some thought I could write the script in an afternoon.

Recording the soundtrack would take more than 5 minutes, of course,
that is only the final product length.  We would need to dub in crowd noises
and the opening bugle call, but that would pretty much be it.
Plus the announcers' words.




You are right, of course, about trying to ride two horses at the same time,
so to speak.  But I kind of think we are maybe about three weeks from
a website   -if all goes well.  Could be longer,  I can't say.

However, I think  (as a guess, no solid  evidence for this) the problem
is that you are reluctant to come up with a goal for Centroids,
an image of what RC.org should become in the future.

In a way this is OK;  I have not had such an image myself, just some
rather vague concepts along the lines of eventually becoming
a new "New America.Foundation" with its own publication,
call it Pacific Monthly, or "The Pacific."  But this is still fuzzy.
However, thinking about it, even this not-well-conceptualized idea
is a sort of model of clarity compared to, u, an even
less well defined concept, namely yours.

I have no idea at all what you would like to see Centroids become.

What would you like to see RC.org become?


Billy












From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar 
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 4:48 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] Virtual Belmont

Hi Billy,

> On Jul 7, 2018, at 4:10 PM, Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> 
> wrote:
>
> Well, whaddaya think?
>

To be honest, I think we have a hard enough time just publishing a book.  
Making a watchable movie is even harder.

Still, if we ever do a Kickstarter for a Radical Centrist book, that horse race 
would make a great promotional video…

E

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups<http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism>
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1531010101]<http://radicalcentrism.org/>

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society<http://radicalcentrism.org/>
radicalcentrism.org
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Google Groups<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] Virtual Belmont

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie!!!

How's this for an idea:


I think this has the potential to go viral if it is done right.


Find a public domain video of a horse race. The film footage should be good 
quality,

not some grainy B/W from the archives. Something that looks good.  Catchy.


Call it the Kentucky Stakes, or something to suggest the Kentucky Derby.

We could not use the Derby name for obvious reasons.


The horse race shows I have seen (not all that many, but a number over the 
years)

all feature a pre-race segment where the horses approach the starting gate.

This is when the announcer talks about each horse and the jockey.


OK, mute the soundtrack.  We supply a new soundtrack. Should be fairly easy to 
do.

Horse racing may be a multi-billion $$ business but it is really simple.

There is a race and a crowd and that's about it. The whole schmeer

takes about 5 minutes, 2-1/2 minutes for the stuff before the race

and about 2-1/2 minutes for the race. You can add about a half minute

for post-race comments,  That's it, 5 minutes and 30 seconds.



We have potential talent for the task. Barry has had a career in broadcast radio

and has a really good voice for the project.  Chris has a terrific voice for

this kind of thing also, and gravitas.  I think this is an objective statement

of fact.  If we could interest either we could have a real winner,

If we could interest both, we could have one do the announcing for

the pre-race segment, which has its own importance,

and the other to call the race itself.


If neither is interested we could still do the show even if

not with the best voices for the task, nonetheless good enough.


OK, there are a dozen or so horses that will be in the race.  All you see

on TV are their numbers,  5, 7, 3, 10, 8, and so forth. The announcer says

something like, "here is Limousine Liberal, who has run in four races

this year with three wins, his jockey is Victor Verness, who says

that the horse should do well on a fast track."  That is pretty much it,

for each horse. It takes about 2 or 3 minutes for all of the horses and

their jockeys.


The idea for a new soundtrack would be to simply use names like

the little skit about Belmont,   -Cultural Marxist, Green Party Animal, etc

and add something about the jockey.  Viewers would see horse # 7

or horse # 2 but our announcer would identify the horses

as Yellow Dog Democrat of Rabid Republican, etc.


Our announcer would also say something about each jockey.

Just a short blurb, but enough to help set the stage.

Maybe the jockey for  Rabid Republican is named

David Crump, for instance, and a short comment

characterizes his rides this past year as a series

of highs and lows with great success at  Singapore Downs

and a serious setback at Washington Meadows, racing

against Russian Story.Something like that.


Maybe our jockey could be Teddy Roosenvelt, maybe

Jamie Madison, something along those lines as a suggestion

-just enough for viewers to make a connection to

something good and noble in America's history.


No preaching, keep everything really simple.

But by all means make sure that we at least try to

create warm fuzzy feelings for the horse named Radical Centrist.


Then there s the race in which Radical Centrist wins in dramatic fashion.



The idea is that by the time the race enters the home stretch

everyone watching a YouTube Video would be cheering for Radical Centrist.



The post race segment, just  a half minute, would be a low key pitch for 
Centroids.



Well, whaddaya think?


Billy
















From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar 
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 3:02 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: Re: [RC] Belmont

May it be so :-)

On Jul 7, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

The next day the Daily Racing Form predicted a long and successful career
for Radical Centrist.



--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To un

[RC] Belmont

[Billy Rojas]

Centroids:

I needed a break from my labors; normally I would watch C-Span for

a little relaxation but there wasn't anything on that TV service today that

particularly interested me, so I decided to do a search on the networks.

Starting with ABC. which, it turned out, was showing the Belmont

Sprint championships from Long Island.


Well, OK, horse racing can be fun to watch, but what sealed the deal was

the name of one of the favorites in the race,  Limousine Liberal.

I'm not making this up, that is the real name of the thoroughbred horse.



This got me thinking, suppose Centroids had a ton of money and we wanted

to get the RC name before the public. Well, why not purchase a really good

race horse and run him in some of the premier races in the country

the way that, in fact, Limousine Liberal has a solid reputation for

success in the real world of 2018 horse racing?


At Belmont today LL won with a dramatic come-from-behind finish.


Now think ahead a couple of years and Centroids is flush with cash and owns

a top notch race horse. It is the Kentucky Derby, 2020.  Here's the call:



And they're off.  Rabid Republican takes the early lead with Yellow Dog Democrat

second and Die Hard Libertarian in the mix at the front.


As they enter the first turn it is Yellow Dog inching ahead, with Die Hard

falling off the pace.  Cultural Marxist is on the outside trying to close

and Populist Demagogue is on Marxist's heels.  Far behind the pack

is Radical Centrist, on the inside.



As we enter the mid point of the race it is Yellow Dog and Rabid Republican,

neck and neck, with Die Hard definitely falling off the pace along with 
Cultural Marxist.

Populist Demagogue is now in the hunt, followed by Green Party Animal.

Radical Centrist is still far off the pace but it isn't hopeless was he passes

Conservative Constitutionalist and Mild Mannered Moderate.


As we enter the far turn Yellow Dog and Rabid still have the lead with

Demagogue in third. Green Party Animal is starting to fade; Cultural Marxist

is definitely falling back. Charging fast, its Radical Centrist, making up

lost ground at a rapid pace. But does he have what it takes to close the gap?


We are in the final stretch and its Yellow Dog and Rabid Republican

still maintaining the number one and number two positions

but Radical Centrist is making an incredible charge toward

the wire leaving Demagogue and Green Party in the dust.

Its Yellow Dog and Rabid Republican but they're not alone,

its Radical Centrist, now even,  five lengths from the finish,

and look at this!, its Radical Centrist by a nose.



The next day the Daily Racing Form predicted a long and successful career

for Radical Centrist.























-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] [ RC ] COMMENTS ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4

[Billy Rojas]

Not sure what to make of this article.  I think I get the main point(s) well 
enough,

but also feel unsatisfied with the drift of the discussion.  What is missing, 
so it seems to me,

is whether or not someone merits respect.  Because respect makes all the 
difference.


Suppose this was WWII and we were talking about a battle, maybe the fight for 
Cherbourg

in France.  Could be any of twenty or so significant battles. Anyway, there is 
a lot of damage

and a lot of suffering.  Suppose someone takes the view that we should pity the

suffering Nazis in Cherbourg, we should let them off easy, maybe even give

them the town if they promise not to take any other towns.  After all, the Nazis

are, in fact, suffering. Some are starving, some are wounded and need medical

attention, some are psychological wrecks, and so forth.


Uhhh, the key element here is the fact that they are Nazis, not that they

are suffering.  As Nazis they do not deserve respect.  Hell, considering

all the evil the Nazis did, they deserve death if they persist in their

fight against the Allies.


As far as I am concerned this is paralleled by the argument that the people of

Gaza suffer from Israeli retaliation to Hamas rocket attacks.  Yes, there are

innocent people caught in the cross fire, but what this is really all about

are a group of de facto Nazis, Hamas, and all the evil they do.  Besides,

the chances are that some percentage of "innocent" victims of cross fire

voted for Hamas and put that group of thugs in power. And I cannot respect them

any more than I could respect de jure Nazis.


In so many words, if you do not establish that some people deserve respect

then any discussion of "sensitivity" is out of bounds.  So is everything else

discussed in the article.


If we were actually discussing a group that deserves respect, sure,

the article would make sense, or more sense than not, but as far as

I can tell no effort was made to establish respect.


My opinion, anyway


Billy









From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:04 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Summary of Edwin Friedman’s ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4


Fascinating book review. A very thoughtful critique of both evangelical and 
liberal Christianity.


Summary of Edwin Friedman’s ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4
https://alastairadversaria.com/2012/01/14/summary-of-edwin-friedmans-a-failure-of-nerve-part-4/

[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/661b25210dac6916ea1861d2adcddeaf?s=200&ts=1530950890]

Summary of Edwin Friedman’s ‘A Failure of Nerve’: Part 4 | Alastair's 
Adversaria
alastairadversaria.com
Other Posts in Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6 The 
Fallacy of Empathy Friedman now proceeds to take aim at the ‘fallacy of 
empathy’. He observes the way in which the political rhetor…


(via Instapaper)



Other Posts in Series: Part 
1,
 Part 
2,
 Part 
3,
 Part 
5,
 Part 
6

The Fallacy of Empathy


Friedman now proceeds to take aim at the ‘fallacy of empathy’. He observes the 
way in which the political rhetoric of sensitivity can hijack agendas. We 
should not be held responsible for the feelings of others who lack the ability 
to distinguish between feelings and opinions and between a sense of offense and 
actual harm. ‘Dialogue is only possible when we can learn to distinguish 
feelings from opinions and recognize that the background or personality of a 
person is totally irrelevant to the validity of what he or she is saying’ (133).

Empathy is a concept that seems laudable and desirable. However, Friedman 
believes that it commonly serves as ‘a disguise for anxiety, a rationalization 
for the failure to define a position, and a power tool in the hands of the 
“sensitive”.’ Those who are most inclined to use the concept of empathy are 
people who feel powerless, and want to ‘use the togetherness force of a 
regressed society to get those whom they perceive to have power to adapt to 
them.’ Much of the power of this approach results from the failure of nerve 
among leaders. However, the focus on ‘understanding’ or feeling with other 
people can be no less invasive th

[RC] The people who write algorithms

[Billy Rojas]

Centroids:

There was a show on C-Span this morning that I had the good fortune to tune in 
to

at just the right moment, a panel discussion on the topic of social media

and false information. I was most impressed by the comments made by

Meredith Broussard, a professor of journalism at NYU.


A while ago, a couple of weeks ago, I made a comment to the effect that

the youth of nearly everyone at Google is a liability to the company.

I imagine that most people who read my remarks shrugged it off

as the views of a primitif who isn't fully connected to the 21st century.

Centroids' very own Rousseau, worshiping an idealized unspoiled nature

that is a thing of the past, etc


Not that there isn't some truth to that outlook,  and I'm certainly

not infatuated with high tech, but it this case "I told you so."


Meredith Broussard is not a relic of the past, and she IS very up to date and

a creature of the 21st century if there ever was one.  She also has a unique 
background

as someone who has a degree in computer science who really knows that field

but who re-trained herself as a journalist and now is a professor of the 
subject.


Broussard made the observation that the people who write algorithms

are -for the most part-  simpletons.  She did not spell it out but they also

tend to be quite young.


Her point is that these people, as good as they may be in crafting algorithms,

make all kinds of assumptions that are hopelessly naive and, in cases,

really uninformed and stupid.  Which should be clear enough when

considering how easily false information spreads and how difficult it is

to root our bad stuff from the web.


These people have almost no sense of  the value of opposition research

and no "ear" for nuances of meaning, nor for ironies or sarcasms.


Among the worst assumptions they make is that "the popular" is

(necessarily) good, or even true. But only idiots could possibly

reach that conclusion, or the very young who simply

do not know better.


Some issues are "people problems" that simply cannot be treated

as game theory problems  -because if you do, you get ludicrous outcomes.

Computer algorithms cannot catch nuances, subtleties,  quirks,

jokes, allusions, and you name it, all of which are how people often think

and how they communicate.  So, how can algorithms get it all right?

They can't  -and it is far better to admit it and work with reality

rather than insist that all issues can be processed via algorithms.

Any such thing is out of reach, maybe forever.


What Broussard suggested is a new kind of "computer regime"

that combines people (experts mostly) with the field of

software development, to produce systems that take full advantage

of human "wisdom" and with the value in high tech,

a value which is considerable.


Anyone have a better idea?


Which is to say that my instincts were right.  There are all kinds of good 
things

to say about 20-somethings, especially their openness to new ideas

and their attitude toward no longer functional traditions. But to attribute

anything at all that can be called "wisdom" to the young is a joke.

Half the time they don't know what in hell they are talking about.


In case you wanted my opinion...


Billy








-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] René Girard on the nature of desire -if only things were this simple

[Billy Rojas]

We desire what other people desire?  Well, yes and no.

There are herd animals and there are contrarians and a lot of people

are mixes of the two.


There is also the matter of self-confidence and maturity.  We have the capacity

even if it undeveloped (or under developed) to think for ourselves, to

be independent-minded.  In that case, what someone else may desire

has minimal meaning.


I have an interest in swastika designs, for instance.  My interest stems from

American history, from knowledge of the place of the symbol in some

of the religions of the world, from uses of the device in graphic arts,

from art history, and from living in New Mexico where swastikas

are commonplace and also in wide use among American Indians.


My interest is shared by an odd mix of people, some of whom I identify with,

like educated Hindus, like historians, like collectors of Americana, etc,

but also by people who I do not identify with at all, like tattoo freaks

and, usually a very different set of people, neo-Nazis (who disgust me).


I'm also aware of  Jewish disdain for the symbol.  And aware of media

demonization of swastikas.  But I persist despite the fact that a majority

of people have negative stereotypes of the symbol as their guiding principle

when they see the design.  Basically I am imitating no-one at all

in having the interest that I do; it is intrinsic to me as a person,

and everyone else can go to hell if they don't like it.


To be sure, about some matters I am as imitation driven as anyone gets.

But I like to think that I use the opinion of others as a guide to what is good

and do not follow the herd for the sake of the herd or of popular tastes.

When I first  lived in Arizona the Grand Canyon held no special interest to me.

But a lot of people raved about it and when the opportunity presented itself

I found myself at the Canyon, looking on in wonder and amazement.

The multitude was right, the Canyon is spectacular and worth

seeing, really worth seeing. It is priceless. If you do not see it

in your lifetime you have forfeited something of inestimable value

and your life, even if you don't know it, has been much poorer for

your not seeing it.  You are missing seeing something of  heaven.


So, the verdict on Girard's thesis is "it depends."



Billy




From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] René Girard on the nature of desire


Dense but intriguing. Especially concerning the perversity of sexual and other 
desires...

René Girard
https://alastairadversaria.com/2008/07/05/rene-girard/

[http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/Girard.jpg]

René Girard | Alastair's 
Adversaria
alastairadversaria.com
A week ago I graduated from the University of St. Andrews. The graduation 
ceremony was very enjoyable, but was made far more memorable on account of the 
fact that René Girard was being presented wi…


(via Instapaper)



[https://i0.wp.com/alastair.adversaria.co.uk/Girard.jpg]
A week ago I graduated from the University of St. Andrews. The graduation 
ceremony was very enjoyable, but was made far more memorable on account of the 
fact that René Girard was being presented with an honorary doctorate.


I have long been a huge fan of the work of René Girard. In contrast to many 
other thinkers, Girard is renowned, not for many insights in various areas of 
study, but for a singular idea of profound explanatory potential, a simple 
insight that illuminates innumerable otherwise perplexing questions. Girard’s 
great insight is that human desire, far from being purely individual and 
arising within us apart from external influence, is imitative and 
‘inter-dividual’ in its constitution. From this single insight great light is 
shed upon social and interpersonal dynamics, religion, mythology and culture.


Girard claims that we learn what to desire by imitating the desires of others. 
This form of behaviour is easiest to observe in the case of children. Put two 
children in a room with a hundred toys and it is quite likely that they will 
end up fighting over the same one. Rather than arising spontaneously or being 
fixed on predefined objects, each child’s desire for the object is mediated and 
reinforced by the desire of the other. Girard argues that desire is ‘mimetic’ 
in character; our desire does not directly fix itself on objects, but is 
mediated by the desire of others for certain objects. Invested with the aura of 
the other’s desire, certain objects can become suddenly greatly desirable to us.


The relationship of imitation (often mutual) between the desiring person and 
the mediator of their desire is deeply important. Objects of desire are largely 
interchangeable, but the bond between

[RC] [ R C] New Way to Think About Solving World’s Biggest Problems: SIMPOL ???

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Whoa, Nelly.


What is remarkable is what was left out of the discussion, social values.

The author assumes that "everyone" can be led to agree that "of course"

the Leftist view of social issues is all that counts, that we can ignore

such issues because the only "real issues" revolve around co-operative

economic objectives.


This is pure Euopean bias, or Eurocentric bias even when a writer may be

Canadian or Australian or something else.   For such people the future will

necessarily be secular, "liberal," based on efficiencies before all else, etc.


It will demand a set of (ersatz)liberal values in lieu of religion, it will 
ignore

actual religion by trivializing it, in short it lacks all understanding of

what might be called "soul."


Which is why I have become mostly disinterested in "neutral" social policy 
proposals.

They aren't really neutral at all, they reflect the values of the coastal 
elites in America,

or of European elites, perchance of Japanese elites, Mexican elites, and so 
forth.

And these people are scared to death of populism, which they regard

as a wild animal that has escaped its cage.


Mexico just had an election, and another populist has won.


It remains to be seen if this new guy will be cultured and educated

and rational, Trump sure in hell is none of the above, but imagine a

cultured and educated and rational populist and what he could do.

That is, think of Teddy Roosevelt but someone who is not a blueblood

from an elite family. That's where I look for a new hope for mankind

even if this kind of "populist" has yet to surface.


What is needed is inspired leadership.  Where is this factor found within 
Evonomics?

This is anything but secondary, it is vital to everything else.


That is, I am not so much antagonistic towards evonomics as incredulous

at what is left out that is essential for anything like evonomics to be 
successful.








Sunday I attended a "new" (for me) Evangelical church. Gads, what  a mess.

I had never before attended a church so far along the path toward death.

The sanctuary was built for a congregation of 300 or 350. Clearly

at one time the church was flourishing. Not any more.

The 50 or 60 people in attendance were almost all seniors

on their last legs.  A half dozen or so were in wheelchairs.

Average age of the congregation had to have been north of 60.

with the median age 80-something.


Think of this as a metaphor for the problems with Christianity today.

Down the block the Nazarene church ( like most Evangelical churches)

is flourishing.  But that is deceptive.  In some parts of the Evangelical

community a sort of "rot" has set in. This may not be all that serious now

but think of the future as the young increasingly abandon the Church


How did this "church for octogenarians" get to where it now is, on a

downward spiral toward death?


One thing is for sure, the problems that caused today's mess

had to have started years ago, but back then, say 1990 or 1995, no-one

was willing to see the problems for what they were, and as the problems

took their toll, as a congregation of 300+ began to decline, the response

was denial.


Now this church will die unless, so to speak, it gets a heart transplant.


To me this is the overarching "problem of problems" and if we

don't solve that issue nothing else really matters.


Billy











From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 2:32 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] A New Way to Think About Solving the World’s Biggest Problems: 
SIMPOL


No idea if it will catch on here, but it’s a clever hack.

A New Way to Think About Solving the World’s Biggest Problems - Evonomics
http://evonomics.com/a-new-way-to-think-about-solving-the-worlds-biggest-problems/

[http://evonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/world.png]

A New Way to Think About Solving the World’s Biggest Problems - 
Evonomics
evonomics.com
How to build global cooperation. It's SIMPOL!


(via Instapaper)



Interview between David Sloan Wilson, 
John Bunzl and Nick Duffell

A while back I received a book in the mail titled “The SIMPOL Solution: A New 
Way to Think About Solving the World’s Biggest 
Problems”
 by John Bunzl and Nick Duffell, who were unknown to me. I get sent a lot of 
books with grandiose titles and don’t get around to reading most of them. But 
something about this one intrigued me, along with an endorsement by Noam 
Chomsky, who wrote “It’s ambitious and provocative: Can it work? Certainly 
worth a serious try”.


So I read it in a single sitt

[RC] Little joke

[Billy Rojas]

What do you say to a teacher of grammar who is very sad and crying?


There, they're, their.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] Idea for website REPLY

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

To keep everything as simple as possible, let me say that I want

"a blog with a layout like Bart Ehrman."  Guess you never read Ehrman, not 
"Erdham,"

who is probably the most important Bible scholar alive today, or certainly the 
most

popular, the most widely read, with one best-seller or near best-seller, after 
another.

Maybe for some topics a more relevant Bible scholar would be someone like

Rbt Eisenman or John Dominic Crossan, but Ehrman is right up there with

the very best.  I happen to disagree with him almost as much as I agree with 
him;

but, damn, all his questions are excellent questions and the most important to 
ask.


"with similar types of content"
WTH??? My guess is that you never cracked even a few pages of my book.

My content is nothing at all like Ehrman's stuff. It is completely different

in every conceivable way.


To try yet again to make this clear, I simply passed along the reference

to Bart Ehrman's site because the layout is close to what I am after.

Maybe it would have been better to have sent a reference to a non-religious

secular site (computers, a small business, sociology, whatever) but I am

a religious scholar  -a scholar of religion-  more than anything else

and reference to the site of a theologian is kind of natural to me.


To put it differently, say the word "religion" to some people and they 
immediately think:
"What do you believe?"


Say the same word, religion, to someone like me and the question, instead,

is "what do you study empirically?"  What you believe is implied, and sometimes

may be the basic question, context tells you which is which, but ordinarily

"religion" means "subject of research interest," or the history of a religion

including the bad stuff about a religion not only the good stuff.




Anyway, let's pretend that I actually referred to a site by someone in the 
software biz

or someone who runs a clothing store.Maybe that will help a little bit.



However, what I would  like to include is a Table of Contents, with two chapter 
titles

highlighted so that visitors to the site can choose to read either (or both) of 
those chapters

to get a sense of the book.


The Table of Contents would also include the contents of the Appendix, with

most of the "chapters" of the Appendix highlighted so that readers can access

that material if they so desire.


Yes, I want to sell copies of the book but more important to me is getting a 
brush fire going,

that is, getting people talking, getting the information "out there," 
generating "buzz"

and, hopefully, a lot of controversy.



Anyway, if you think a phone call would be useful, OK with me.

Just let me know approximately when you might call so that I can be awake

at the time, or at home and not running errands.



cheers

Billy



____
From: Centroids 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:54 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Idea for website

Hi Billy,

Does this help make things clear?

Not really. For a website design, the most important aspects are:
- structure
- content types
- layout

It sounded like you want a blog with a layout like Bart Erdham, with similar 
types of content.  If you are okay doing -exactly- that, we can figure out what 
tools to use, how much it would cost to build, and how to train you.

If you want to use one aspect of his layout for content like you describe, no 
problem.

If you are saying you want to -change- that design to add another editable 
sidebar with a new type of content, that would be a lot more effort.

Does that make sense? Or am I using too much jargon, and we need a phone call 
to align on terminology?

E

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Idea

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

After sending that criticism of Google a thought hit me. Namely:


It might be very useful to include a section of the proposed site that features

reviews of current  -or at least recent-  articles critical of homosexuals or 
homosexuality.

Not the complete articles, but short reviews with a few well chosen quotes

that, in total, give a pretty clear picture of what recent writings actually say

and that make it obvious that these criticisms are not only relevant

but essential to take into consideration in today's debates on the issue.


Not many people are even aware that there are such articles; homosexual 
propaganda

and pro-homosexual commentary in the press and on TV give the almost universal

impression that the issue has been settled once and for all in favor of

homosexual interests.  This view happens to be close to 180 degrees from the 
mark.


Keep in mind, Ernie, that I operate on the assumption, an "assumption" that is

based on years of hard won experience, to the effect that on some issues,

homosexuality most conspicuously, just about all "conventional wisdom"

is flat out wrong.


My case, while it certainly is consistent with the Bible, while it is at least 
partly

inspired by the Bible, is not a typical Christian screed.  Mostly my case

is evidentiary and rests on decades of serious scholarly research.


Which is why I take the view that just about anything said by "officials" on 
this

issue consists of pure horse crap.  The same goes for members of the judiciary,

including  Justices of the Supreme Court.  That is, on this issue, they are

ignorant and simply do not know what in hell they are talking about.


My overall approach, call it a strategy if you want to,  is to condemn my 
opponents

where they have the least defenses, the question of knowledge  vs ignorance.

They think they are well-informed and anything but ignorant.  What my book

demonstrates is that they are hopelessly uninformed and utterly ignorant.


Does this help make things clear?



Billy















-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Google promotes homosexuality

[Billy Rojas]

There is a sort of "preachy" style to the following article that

does not appeal to me in the least, and the writer misses

a number of examples that would have made his essay

more effective, but his point is very well taken and

from what I can tell he is accurate in just about everything.


If it ever becomes possible I fully intend to go to war against

Google in the future.  AND against the pro-homosexual policies

of the Trump administration.


BR

Google Imposes Propaganda of Homosexual “Pride” on Users
By Julio Severo
I was searching through Google last week when the Google page flashed on my 
face,
“Celebrate Pride Month” #ThisIsFamily
This propaganda was accompanied by homosexual 
flags.
[https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HHaL1bPUvwk/WyDq2RMuGOI/ix4/HaDPEubUk9cvjQluo8vizrd94QN-M-FWQCLcBGAs/s640/Google%2BPride%2BMonth.PNG]
A whole month to celebrate… perverted homosexual sex and pervert the meaning of 
family for the advantage of the homosexual agenda! Cannot Google dedicate a 
whole month for the celebration of the natural family? Cannot Google dedicate a 
whole month to Jesus and the Bible, which had a fundamental role in the U.S. 
history and culture?
People want to celebrate positive events as Christmas and Easter, not negative 
events as pride in homosexual sex. When most people think of family, the first 
picture that comes naturally to the mind is a man, a woman and children, never 
a group of worshippers of anal sex celebrating homosexual sex. Why pervert the 
natural family and induce people to celebrate proudly the crime of perverting 
it?
I am not celebrating any “pride” on homosexuality. Most people also are not 
celebrating it. Why then does Google impose such propaganda on its 
users?
Normal people have no pride in anal sex. They are proud of the natural family: 
a man, a woman and children. No one is proud of a group of worshippers of anal 
sex celebrating homosexual sex!
Google is an American company created by Americans. Most Americans celebrate 
Christmas and Jesus, but Google never mentions this celebration massively 
recognized by Americans.
Most Americans celebrate Easter and Jesus’s resurrection, but Google never 
mentions this celebration massively recognized by Americans.
Most Americans celebrate family as a man, a woman and children, but Google’s 
idea of family includes a group of worshippers of anal sex gathered together. 
Google’s idea and propaganda have no place in the whole American history. 
George Washington, the first U.S. president, in no way accepted worshippers of 
anal 
sex.
Why does Google reject popular historical celebrations respected by large 
numbers of Americans and give preference to a “celebration” of pride of anal 
sex and other homosexual perversions accepted only by a fringe of extremists?
It is a duty of the U.S. government to intervene against threats to its 
national security. Is not family such a national security 
issue?
Google suggested that pride in anal sex is “family.” Did the founders of 
America see worshippers of anal sex as “family”? Were they worshippers of 
homosexual depravities? Did they advocate that pride in homosexual sex 
represents family? So why does the U.S. government do nothing to stop this 
desecration of its most important national resource, family?
For lesser threats, the U.S. has militarily intervened in the affairs of other 
nations. Why not a military intervention in Google too?
If the U.S. can send troops to far-away nations to solve issues with no 
relation to the U.S. national security, why cannot the U.S. send its troops to 
the Google headquarters and stop its abuses against its users and the American 
family?
Forsaking one’s own family to meddle in the affairs of distant nations is not 
patriotism. It is to betray the most important values of a homeland.
Why wage stupid wars in far-away nations if the U.S. is not able to wage the 
most important war in its own soil and protect the integrity of family from 
greedy companies that have overstepped their limits?
If the U.S. government cannot intervene in Google, why intervene in far-away 
nations? Is oil more important than family? To protect and heavily arm the 
Islamic dictatorship of Saudi 
Arabia
 is more important than to protect family?
Yet, how can the U.S. government intervene in Google if its own State 
Department, headed by an evangelical Christian, has also declared June as the 
LGBTI Pride 
Month

[RC] Korea symbolism

[Billy Rojas]

[Image result for korea  swastikas]

Jeju, Korea




[Image result for korea  swastikas]


Embassy of South Korea, Moscow



[Image result for korea  swastikas]


Songtan, South Korea

Buddhist meeting hall




[Image result for korea  swastikas]

Seoul, South Korea

Buddhist temple




[Image result for korea  swastika flag]

Miryang, South Korea




[Image result for korea  " red swastika society"flag]


exact location uncertain but some place in Korea


[Image result for korea  " red swastika society"flag]


Buddha  with heart / compassion symbol on his chest



[Image result for korea+buddhist+flag+swastika]








-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Welcome to Singapore -Reply

[Billy Rojas]

Swastika=

Buddha's heart, compassion, and also the love between men and women.

Sometimes a Buddhist or Hindu swastika is depicted as two intertwined snakes.


Generally in Asia, but there are lots of exceptions, a Left facing swastika is 
Buddhist

and a Right facing design is Hindu.


The Red Swastika Society is sort of the Buddhist equivalent of the Red Cross.

The difference is that the RSS also has a school / education branch.

For whatever reason there are all kinds of photos of members of the RSS

during WWII showing nurses and others helping people deal with

injuries from the conflict.  It is weird from an American perspective

since, of course, in Europe the swastika was used by the Nazis

to cause war. But swastika flags in Asia at the time were meant

to ameliorate the effects of war and promote peace.


I had a friend who was a vet from the Viet Nam war and he told me that

he saw many temples and other facilities in the country which featured

swastikas in their decorations.


Falun Gong also uses swastikas  -prominently- in their public events.


The swastika is also used by the Dalai Lama.



Hope this helps.


Billy



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 8:29 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] Welcome to Singapore


Interesting.  What does the red swastika mean to these folks in Singapore?



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Billy Rojas
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:00 AM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: [RC] Welcome to Singapore



[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]





[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]







[X]

[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]





--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Welcome to Singapore

[Billy Rojas]

[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]



[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]




[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]


[Image result for singapore   "red swastika"]


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: Contract document Re: [ RC ] Gordian knot etc

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

I just looked over our earlier correspondence. Yeah, I got your replies, etc

and it is clear (to me anyway) that we have been talking past each other.

So, let me try and untangle the Gordian knot.


What I was trying to say was that, yes, a website to promote the book

should be priority #1.   OK, we can start with that.


However, in a sense there is a more important objective, namely:


I need to learn some basic skills that I simply do not now have.

Sure, a book promotion site is necessary.  But I need to learn how

to use the site.  Better still, if at all possible, I would like to gain

the skills to build the damn site myself.


If I can do that, then my other goals could be met in due course, too.


In other words, I'd like to learn the skills I do not now have

as part of the process of creating the site for the book.  You seem to

think that I already have most of these skills. But I do not have those skills.



"And is there any way you can now work with Google Docs or exchange Word files,

so we can keep track of revisions more easily than just email?"


Uhhh, exactly where would I have learned how to use Google Docs or Word files?

I'd be happy to learn but there is no-one to teach me.


This is why, a month or so ago, in one of my e-mails, my suggestion

was to  hire a tech person to tutor me.  I outlined a 3 week program

for the purpose.


Look, for all I know, maybe I can learn this stuff in one week,

not 3 or 4 weeks.  It would be great to learn everything necessary

in just one week.  Trouble is that it is anyone's guess if

that is possible for me.  I just do not know.


Anyway, if I can't learn the basics then everything else

is pretty much  pointless.


Can we discuss this first?



Billy



---









From: Centroids 
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:14 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: Contract document Re: [RC] WTH ??? "blue skies ,blue skies, etc"

Hi Billy,

Did you not get any of my early replies?

I said:

- be clear on precisely what kind of website you want to build
- focus this contract only on the book, not fixing all of RC

I was (and am) expecting a first draft of a document that captures what you 
want, which we can iterate on. It doesn’t have to be an Official Legal 
Document, but it needs to be something more than a list of potential ideas. 
Otherwise we will keep getting stuck in the toxic cycle where we each aren’t 
clear what the other wants.

Can you write up something like that for us to start with, or do you want me to 
or together a first draft?

And is there any way you can now work with Google Docs or exchange Word files, 
so we can keep track of revisions more easily than just email?

— Ernie P.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 6, 2018, at 20:32, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


Ernie:

H.


My working assumption was that there should be some sort of negotiation or

meeting of the minds prior to any kind of legal document. Along the lines

of "here are my objectives, 1, 2, 3...n"   And: "Do you have any comments

or suggestions?"


I don't know what is feasible from your perspective, what  limits are advisable,

and, just as important, "what am I missing or overlooking?"


This said, what I had expected was some kind of reply to the effect

that I was or was not on the right track as a basis for further discussion

prior to writing out something in contract format.


Tell you what, if you want to drop the whole thing, fine with me.

At this point I have arrived at a place where my feeling is "what's the use?"

Something always goes wrong.  I have other ideas to develop,

just because I may not be sending stuff doesn't mean I'm not busy;

the opposite is the case.



Billy




From: Centroids 
mailto:drer...@radicalcentrism.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 10:27 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Billy Rojas; Ernest Prabhakar
Subject: Contract document Re: [RC] WTH ??? "blue skies ,blue skies, nuthin' 
but blue skies from now on"

Hi Billy,


I sent two (2)  e-mails to you on May 18 each under the heading of
"Contract Ideas," the second e-mail adding some new stuff.

Yes, I saw the ideas. But I thought you were actually going to send me an 
actual Contract. Like:

“I Billy want to create a website exactly like THIS, which I expect will cost 
$1000 and generate $1 in revenue of which you Ernie will get 10% for 
helping bring to reality.”

Or whatever numbers you like. But a single concrete document we both would 
commit to and sign, not just a list of things we -might like- to do. THAT is 
what I meant by a Contract. Did you mean

Re: Contract document Re: [RC] WTH ??? "blue skies ,blue skies, etc"

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

H.


My working assumption was that there should be some sort of negotiation or

meeting of the minds prior to any kind of legal document. Along the lines

of "here are my objectives, 1, 2, 3...n"   And: "Do you have any comments

or suggestions?"


I don't know what is feasible from your perspective, what  limits are advisable,

and, just as important, "what am I missing or overlooking?"


This said, what I had expected was some kind of reply to the effect

that I was or was not on the right track as a basis for further discussion

prior to writing out something in contract format.


Tell you what, if you want to drop the whole thing, fine with me.

At this point I have arrived at a place where my feeling is "what's the use?"

Something always goes wrong.  I have other ideas to develop,

just because I may not be sending stuff doesn't mean I'm not busy;

the opposite is the case.



Billy




From: Centroids 
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 10:27 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas; Ernest Prabhakar
Subject: Contract document Re: [RC] WTH ??? "blue skies ,blue skies, nuthin' 
but blue skies from now on"

Hi Billy,


I sent two (2)  e-mails to you on May 18 each under the heading of
"Contract Ideas," the second e-mail adding some new stuff.

Yes, I saw the ideas. But I thought you were actually going to send me an 
actual Contract. Like:

“I Billy want to create a website exactly like THIS, which I expect will cost 
$1000 and generate $1 in revenue of which you Ernie will get 10% for 
helping bring to reality.”

Or whatever numbers you like. But a single concrete document we both would 
commit to and sign, not just a list of things we -might like- to do. THAT is 
what I meant by a Contract. Did you mean something else?

Were you expecting me to take your ideas and write that contract for you? Or is 
there some specific question you want me to answer first before you create that 
official contract?

E


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2018, at 18:55, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


Ernie:

I sent two (2)  e-mails to you on May 18 each under the heading of
"Contract Ideas," the second e-mail adding some new stuff.

My "Inbox" shows that you received these e-mails.


I believe there was a previous email from a day before

that also was headed "Contract Ideas"   The 2 emails for the 18th

are based on that earlier version.  My best guess is that you deleted these 
emails

back on the 18th for reasons of your own.


I recall something similar for the Bugle prospectus back a few years ago.

I wrote the whole thing up, twenty pages or so, a week of my time,

and sent it, and my (at the time)  AOL inbox confirmed that the email had

been received.  My best guess is that you also deleted that one.

so that you could say I never sent it.



Billy




From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Centroids 
mailto:drer...@radicalcentrism.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 6:20 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] Reinvention of America viz., "blue skies ,blue 
skies, nuthin' but blue skies from now on"

Hi Billy,



In case you want my opinion.

Actually, I’m still waiting for your contract...

E

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups<http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism>
groups.google.com<http://groups.google.com>
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1528249427]<http://radicalcentrism.org/>

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society<http://radicalcentrism.org/>
radicalcentrism.org<http://radicalcentrism.org>
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>>
Google Group: http://groups.goo

[RC] WTH ??? "blue skies ,blue skies, nuthin' but blue skies from now on"

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

I sent two (2)  e-mails to you on May 18 each under the heading of
"Contract Ideas," the second e-mail adding some new stuff.

My "Inbox" shows that you received these e-mails.


I believe there was a previous email from a day before

that also was headed "Contract Ideas"   The 2 emails for the 18th

are based on that earlier version.  My best guess is that you deleted these 
emails

back on the 18th for reasons of your own.


I recall something similar for the Bugle prospectus back a few years ago.

I wrote the whole thing up, twenty pages or so, a week of my time,

and sent it, and my (at the time)  AOL inbox confirmed that the email had

been received.  My best guess is that you also deleted that one.

so that you could say I never sent it.



Billy




From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 6:20 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: [ RC ] Reinvention of America viz., "blue skies ,blue 
skies, nuthin' but blue skies from now on"

Hi Billy,



In case you want my opinion.

Actually, I’m still waiting for your contract...

E

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1528249427]

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society
radicalcentrism.org
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] Reinvention of America viz., "blue skies ,blue skies, nuthin' but blue skies from now on"

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

You can't be serious.  You of all people   -because you are, in some ways 
anyhow,

an RC antidote to James Fallows.  Or maybe you were exactly that in the past

but are not that, any more


I say this as a (former) fan of James Fallows, whom I have been reading

since some time in the 1990s. But he isn't what he used to be. Which was?

A serious social critic who has contributed important ideas to everyone

with an interest in, among other things, the US military, American journalism,

and East Asia and its politics and economics.


Alas, in his dotage he has increasingly become a wimp.


And more and more out of touch with reality.


To be sure, there are all kinds of good things to be said about America

and about "average Americans."  But where he now sees a nation at peace

with itself where everything is on the rise, where every dark cloud has a 
silver lining,

it is quite possible to discern a very different picture:


Where various pathologies / social pathologies are the new normal,

like sado-masochism, like law of the jungle laissez faire economics,

like reverse racism now run amok, where dishonesty about our problems

is now endemic wherever you look, where women who have been

sexually molested may agree to settlements of $130,000 or a million dollars

or multiples of  a million dollars to keep quiet, which they gladly accept

knowing full well that the moral thing to do would have been to turn down

the money and spill their guts to the press.


Fallows raves about  how a normal income is $50,000 and bemoans

the fact the some people must scrape by on  $30,000.  What a laugh.

Some people need to make do with $12,000 or thereabouts and

this is to discuss not only a scarce few souls but a small multitude.

Which is not even to talk about health care that is, while excellent

in some respects, in others is one of the worst in the industrial world.


There is an attitude afoot that is anything but new but that seems increasingly

prevalent in our era, namely, "I've got mine and screw you."  Not that Donald 
Trump

lacks all virtue but on this matter he epitomizes the problem.  Plus, certainly

in the recent and further past, he has shown disrespect for the law whenever

he has money at stake.  But it is hardly only Trump who embodies the problem.

It is everywhere.



I saw a segment on TV about Google a few days ago.  There were scenes from

inside the Google complex in Silicon Valley.  Everyone was young; I doubt

if anyone shown in the video clips was older than 40; most looked like

they were 20 somethings. Is is any wonder that Google searches

yield the kinds of results they often do, where the default for,

as an example, James Bay, is not the lasting and important

geographical feature named James Bay in Canada, much larger

than any of the Great Lakes, but a certain entertainer

named James Bay who, while maybe he has some talent,

simply doesn't come close in significance.


But this sort of thing is pervasive on Google searches. And what does

anyone expect when the people creating the algorithms

know so little about the world and seem to have close

to zero comprehension of the realm of ideas?


Jordan Peterson has lamented the fact that there are fewer and fewer men

in the Humanities in college anywhere in the US or Canada; this trend

is now at least 40 years in the making.  Yet of people who comment

about education no-one at all seems to appreciate what this means

as our common culture gradually goes down the toilet.  After all,

nothing matters (to men) except STEM. And high level incomes. And so

the culture is turned over to Cultural Marxists and feminists.


Not to self-sacrificing true Christians, but Cultural Marxists and feminists.


About all of which Christians are dumbfounded. After all, how can culture

make them any money?


Besides, they have pretty much bought into the Cultural Marxist and feminist

social narratives themselves, so why bother with cultural issues?



To be sure,  I do not see failure everywhere. There is a helluva lot that is

right with America.  Regardless, there is, in fact, a looming crisis of major

proportions and believers are hopelessly ill-prepared to deal with it

precisely because they are cultural illiterates.


This is an over-generalization, you certainly are an exception,

but to make a point


But I am less and less inclined to provide my opinions here because

whatever I may say is ignored as a matter of routine.  And your word

to the contrary is, so to speak, pretty much nothing but "Confederate money."


That is, we need far more than one more new version of Plato's Republic

to make a difference in the world.  We need far more than another 10 year plan

that, 10 years later, has only resulted in a lot of words and no action.


In case you want my opinion.



Billy


















From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Friday, June

[RC] Patrick Deneen and his critque of Liberalism

[Billy Rojas]

Highlights added to this excellent book review.


The question of contemporary "liberalism"  exceeding all kinds of

natural principles has been on my mind for some time now.  This phenomenon

first came to my attention about the period I first learned about sociobiology,

which  was maybe in about 1980.  That is, and it is no accident that 
sociobiology

was "invented" by a one-time Baptist, EO Wilson, which is a science that

tries to be objective about the source of our values, namely,

human nature rooted in our evolutionary past and, more recently,

rooted in 'natural' cultures.  "Recently" meaning, since the rise of

civilization and organized religions. In any case...


>From the start of my Radical Centrist days in ca. 1995 this issue

has only become more relevant and acute.


Still, there are more ways than one to define  "liberalism" and my way is 
different

than what is far more common these days, in which liberalism is generally 
identified

with the policies of the Democratic Party.


The Democratic Party is relevant to my definition but essentially in an 
historical sense,

hearkening back to FDR and Harry Truman, and to some extent JFK.  Democrats

from that era would fit in fairly well with today's conservative movement even 
if

on some issues (like honest criticism of mega-businesses) they are miles apart.

But think of all the appeals to religious faith on the part of FDR and

think of the social responsibility views of JFK (and also LBJ),

views based on some version of Christian understanding of society

and its needs.


The trouble with many current critiques of the "liberal worldview" is that

they miss what is most important, namely, the sickness which is libertarian 
ideology

that has garnered much "liberal" support (plus the support of many so-called

"conservatives"), and the utter failure of Evangelical Christianity (only a few

exceptions) to take the realm of ideas seriously, to take culture seriously,

and to "engage" with modern day intellectual realities.


All of which  explains why I have so much hope for RC, which is still

a new political philosophy.


What is the Christian basis for RC assumptions?


I Corinthians 6: 12

"I am free to do anything," you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good.



The point of politics must be "what is objectively good?"

It cannot be "freedom is an absolute value" -the point of view

of libertarians and the far Left, each group defining "freedom"

to suit its agenda, self-centeredness  and greed for the Right,

and "anything goes" libertinism / cultural Marxism for the Left

in the shadow of the sickest 'philosopher' ever to live, Herbert Marcuse.


Self-centeredness is a false god and "anything goes" is a false proposition

inasmuch as some things are objectively pathological such as homosexuality,

and efforts to "normalize" the pathological have the demonstrable effect

of tearing society into shreds.   Or of pathologizing the entire culture

and, in the process, poisoning minds of even the very best people.


Freedom is a necessary condition for RC but it is anything but

a sufficient condition. We need to identify what is objectively good,

learn what our limits are, and what best enables us to grow and flourish

as decent and productive and compassionate human beings.

This needs to include any number of virtues found in Evangelical

Christianity but  -just as much-   reinventing Christian faith

for the world of the 21str century and beyond.  Today's

Evangelical Christianity desperately  needs a comprehensive
reformation; it has lost much or even most of its credibility

among the young and many others and cannot stand


In any case, a very thoughtful review and set of ideas for thinking in valuable 
ways.




Billy










 Patric Deneen and the Problem with Liberalism
by  Samuel Gregg
within Book Reviews, 
Philosophy, Religion 
and the Public Square

May 14th, 2018

 88  45  137
Patrick Deneen poses good questions but begs others. The second installment in 
the Public Discourse symposium on Why Liberalism Failed.

For some time, I’ve regarded the word “liberalism” as an expression now 
invested with so many contradictory meanings that it has become useless as a 
way of describing a consistent set of principles with particular implications 
for political order. The twentieth-century philosophers John Rawls and Robert 
Nozick were typically described as “liberals.” Yet their positions on, for 
instance, questions of political economy were light years apart.

In his book Why Liberalism 
Failed, 
Patrick Deneen outlines a very specific understanding of liberalism and why he 
thinks it’s a problem. Liberalism,

[RC] Not again

[Billy Rojas]

This time I was looking for information about the legendary kingdom of Mustang

in the Himalayas; the small principality is primarily within the borders of 
Nepal.
Still, I expected some understandable alternative results, maybe an article

about wild horses in the American West or about sports teams that

use Mustangs as a mascot.  For all I know "Mustang" may even be

a personal name in various countries.  And, of course, there is another

legendary Mustang, a "house of ill repute" located in Nevada.


Nope, that is NOT how the Google algorithm is set up.  The ONLY possible

meaning is that Mustang is a sports car made by the Ford Motor Company.


OK, a couple of references to that fine automobile would have been perfectly 
OK.

But ALL of the references ??




Tell you what the problem at Google is:  Their algorithm writers

have their heads up their a**es.  There really isn't a better way to say it.

Except to add that whoever hires these vain and ignorant youngsters isn't any 
better.

Google is some kind of bad joke.


My humble opinion

Billy



-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Belief in God -what the statistics say

[Billy Rojas]

20 Percent of Christians Say They Don’t Believe in the God of the Bible


BY TYLER O'NEIL APRIL 25, 2018
CHAT 14 
COMMENTS
[https://static.pjmedia.com/faith/user-content/52/files/2016/10/church-1.sized-770x415xt.jpg]
Image Credit Shutterstock

A new poll has found that only 80 percent of those who identify themselves as 
Christian say they believe in the God of the Bible. One percent said they do 
not even believe in a God or higher power of any kind. Meanwhile, about 
one-fifth of the religious "nones" said they believe in the God of the Bible, 
and more than half of them said they believe in a higher power or a spiritual 
force.

A vast majority of U.S. adults (80 percent) said they believe in God but that 
the Bible did not always determine the type of God they believe exists. Just 
over half (56 percent) said they believe in the God of the Bible, while 32 
percent said they believe in "some higher power or a spiritual force." Many who 
point-blank said they do not believe in God still said they believe in an 
impersonal higher power or spiritual force.
Even a substantial portion of those who identify as Christians said they do not 
believe in the God of the Bible. Only 80 percent of self-identified Christians 
said they believe in that God, while 18 percent said they believe in some other 
higher power. Roman Catholics (69 percent) and mainline Protestants (72 
percent) were least likely to say they believe in the God of the Bible, while 
historically black Protestants (92 percent) and evangelicals (91 percent) were 
most likely to say they believe in the Bible's God, according to the Pew 
Research 
Center.

More than a quarter of Catholics (28 percent) and mainline Protestants (26 
percent) said they believe in some other higher power, while 13 percent of 
Protestants did so, along with 8 percent of evangelicals and 6 percent of 
historically black Protestants. Two percent of Catholics said they "do not 
believe in God or other power of any kind," along with 1 percent of mainline 
Protestants.
These numbers seem to confirm the idea of a cultural Christianity — that many 
Americans identify as Christian and go to church, but do not actually believe 
in Christian doctrine. While the Roman Catholic Church values tradition on the 
same level as the Bible, official Catholic doctrine still involves the God of 
the Bible. Why do Christians disagree with the doctrine that defines their 
religion?



12 Lies American Evangelicals 
Believe



Many Americans go to church occasionally, have Christian friends, and think of 
themselves as Christian, while rejecting what the Bible teaches about God. 
Nevertheless, unlike Jews, Christians are only defined by their religion. 
Therefore the fact that only a third (33 percent) of Jewish Americans told Pew 
they believe in the God of Bible should not be as surprising. A full 56 percent 
of Jews said they believe in a higher power different from the Bible's God, and 
10 percent said they do not believe in any kind of God. While Judaism is an 
important and historic faith, one need not believe in God to be a Jew.

Atheists, unsurprisingly, told Pew they do not believe in the God of the Bible 
(0 percent), but 18 percent of them did say they believe in another higher 
power, while 81 percent said they do not believe in a God or other higher 
power. Interestingly, 3 percent of agnostics said they do believe in the God of 
the Bible, while 62 percent said they believe in a higher power, and only 30 
percent said they do not believe in a God of any kind.

Americans who did not identify with any religious group or belief — those who 
said they believe in "nothing in particular" — proved surprisingly likely to 
believe in the God of the Bible (28 percent). Another 60 percent said they 
believe in a higher power, while only 9 percent said they do not believe in any 
kind of God.
These numbers should encourage Christians who do believe in the God of the 
Bible and the salvation in Jesus Christ. Even many of the unaffiliated said 
they believe in God, and even the God of the Bible. If they believe in the God 
of the Bible, they may take the Bible seriously, and be willing to consider the 
words of Jesus Christ.

Even so, these numbers suggest Christians will have to evangelize among ... 
those who already identify as Christians. This involves not just preaching the 
gospel, but encouraging discipleship — telling Christians they need to take 
Jesus's words seriously and put His teaching into practice.

Among self-identified Christians, the vast majority described God as loving all 
people (93 percent), knowing everything in the world (87 percent), and having 
power to direct or change e

[RC] Teddy Roosevelt: Radical Centrist ahead of his time

[Billy Rojas]

From: Billy Rojas
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018



Why Teddy Roosevelt Is Popular On Both Sides of the Political Aisle
A historian considers the forces that have shaped the Rough Rider’s 
presidential legacy in the decades since his death nearly 100 years ago

By Michael Patrick Cullinane, Zócalo Public 
Square<http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2018/04/20/liberals-conservatives-claim-theodore-roosevelt/ideas/essay/?xid=PS_smithsonian>
smithsonian.com
April 23, 2018


|
|

A president’s career can extend well beyond his death, as family, friends, and 
fans work tirelessly to maintain his legacy and image.


For roughly 10 years, I have studied the legacy of the 26th president, Theodore 
Roosevelt. Even after a decade, I continue to be astounded by how regularly 
Roosevelt is invoked in politics and beyond.

Today, TR is ubiquitous. If you follow sports, you may have seen Teddy 
Goalsevelt, the self-appointed mascot for Team USA soccer who ran for FIFA 
president in 2016. Or you may have watched the giant-headed Roosevelt who 
rarely wins the Presidents’ Race at Washington Nationals baseball games. If you 
enjoy the cinema, you will likely recall Robin Williams as Roosevelt in the 
Night at the Museum trilogy, or might know that a biopic starring Leonardo 
DiCaprio as Roosevelt is slated for production.


In politics, Roosevelt has become the rare figure popular with both left and 
right. Vice President Mike Pence recently compared his boss Donald Trump to 
Roosevelt; in 2016, candidate Hillary Clinton named the Rough Rider as her 
political lodestar. Environmentalists celebrate Roosevelt as the founding 
father of conservation and a wilderness warrior, and small business interests 
celebrate his battles against large corporations.

And more than a century after he was shot in Milwaukee during the 1912 
presidential campaign, Roosevelt remains a target; last year, his statue in 
front of the Museum of Natural History in New York was splattered in red paint 
in protest of its symbolic 
relationship<https://hyperallergic.com/407921/activists-splatter-roosevelt-monument-amnh/>
 to white supremacy, among other things.


Roosevelt’s high profile is no mere accident of history. Shortly after 
Roosevelt’s death, two memorial associations organized and worked to perpetuate 
his legacy.


One of these organizations sought to tie Roosevelt to the politics of the early 
20th century, and cast him as a national icon of Americanism. At that time, 
Americanism stood for patriotism and civic-mindedness, as well as 
anti-communism and anti-immigration. This ideology helped Republicans win back 
the White House in 1920, but it also galvanized the first Red Scare.


The second memorial organization rejected the political approach to 
commemoration, choosing to represent Roosevelt’s legacy in artistic, creative, 
and utilitarian forms, including monuments, films, artwork, and by applying the 
Roosevelt name to bridges and buildings. Of course, some of these activities 
had implicit political angles, but they generally avoided association with 
overt causes, in favor of historical commemoration. When it came to 
fundraising, the apolitical organization raised 10 times as much income as the 
political one, and within ten years the two organizations folded into a single 
memorial association that abandoned political interpretations. Roosevelt became 
bipartisan and polygonal.


This is not to say Roosevelt’s legacy lost all meaning. Quite the opposite; our 
perception of Roosevelt has endured a number of declines and revivals. And, 
through the rounds of historical revision and re-revision, he has maintained 
certain characteristics.


His civic-minded Americanism endures, as does his record as a conservationist 
and a progressive. Roosevelt still evokes an image of an American cowboy, a 
preacher of righteousness, and a leading intellectual.

Most interestingly, these elements of his legacy are not mutually exclusive. 
Invoking one does not require us to exclude another. For example, Barack Obama 
promoted the Affordable Care Act in 2010 by memorializing Roosevelt’s advocacy 
for national healthcare in 1911. Obama could recall Roosevelt’s progressivism 
while avoiding the Bull Moose’s mixed record on race relations or his support 
of American imperialism. In short, commemorators can take from Roosevelt what 
they want and, consequently, his legacy grows ever more complex and elastic.


The upcoming centenary of Roosevelt’s death in January 2019 offers us an 
opportunity to understand more about how presidential legacies are shaped by 
successive generations. Images of former presidents come from various sources, 
and because they can act as a powerful emblem for any cause, their images 
proliferate without much scrutiny.


Politicians are well aware of this. Sarah Palin, a right-wing Republican, 
co-opted the legacy of Democrat Harry Truman in her 2008 vice-presidential 
nomin

[RC] Absurd algorithm

[Billy Rojas]

Recently I has occasion to look up  "Cytherea," an alternative version of the 
name Venus.

Alas, the sages at Google (none of whom are older than about 19 or possibly 22,

created an algorithm that brings up a porn star named Cytherea and only

the porn star named Cytherea.   Laced in with  references to her name

are terms like porn and sex and "f**k."


I realize that youth is the commodity of choice in Silicon Valley or other 
similar

venues, but as a modest criticism, this policy is stupid and the youngsters

whom are hired are ignorant nincompoops.


This reminds me of an incident at Microsoft maybe 15 years ago when Encarta

was the rage.  If you looked up Madonna, you got all kinds of stuff about a

singer /actress of that name and exactly nothing about the real Madonna


Moral of the story: Algorithms are only as good as the programmers who

create them and if these worthies are cultural illiterates, who are basically

ignorant of history including religious history and the history of ideas,

you will get a "product" that consists of popular culture crap

and just about  only  popular culture crap.


Not all popular culture is crap, of course, but some certainly is,

and that sector of reality seems to be what the people in much of

Silicon Valley value so highly.



My humble opinion.


BTW, I did not click on an images for "Cytherea," not out of prudery

or a sense of self righteousness, but because it has been my experience

from the year when I fist got a computer that visiting such sites

is electronic suicide, guaranteed to muck up your computer

with all kinds of garbage.  Much as I may like pictures

of nekkid wimmen it isn't a good idea to actually open

any of the sites where they display their bare bodkins.


Anyway, regardless, I really had an interest in looking up

the history of the alternative name of Venus.   I realize that

the snot-nose punks who work at Google simply cannot

conceive of any such thing, but for for the record..;...



BR

.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Sean Trende & Sodomy Rep[y

[Billy Rojas]

Traditional print media, and, in cases, TV.



From: Centroids 
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:12 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Sean Trende & Sodomy

Hey Billy,

The best that can be done is to censor me, to shut me up by means of denial of 
a public forum.

What public forum are you referring to?

E

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Sean Trende & Sodomy

[Billy Rojas]

t sodomy, which is far more that

they may want to think about.  Any  excuse will do, to avoid dealing

with the issue, and, besides the Bible is irrelevant on the subject.


Actually the Bible is very relevant.  But not (or not so much) in terms

of its prohibitions and condemnations but because it gives testimony

to the wisdom in its pages.  Exactly why does the Bible condemn  homosexuality?

To say that God dislikes sodomy is not an answer.  But it is little or no 
problem

to study the dysfunctional nature of homosexuality, there is a copious 
literature

of the many liabilities associated with contemporary sodomy, and,

unpleasant as it may be to read this stuff, there is no alternative

if you want to claim to be informed on the subject.


There are plenty of reasons why the Bible takes a completely negative view

of sodomy;  which is to say that in all 30 verses (a few quite lengthy)

where the subject comes up, it is rejected as unfit for human consumption

-and there are no exceptions.  The point is that with a little due diligence

you can identify real world reasons for condemning homosexuality

and for not compromising in the least on the issue.


Alas, nearly all Christians that I know about who do show some backbone

and oppose sodomy are committed to being totally ineffective in their approach,

unwilling to listen to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about,

who can do no better than to argue on behalf of "religious freedom"  -as if

they can only "think" like so many libertarians, as if libertarian arguments

are all there are to  be said outside of appeal to authority.


Here's a question for you in conclusion:  Exactly why am I shut out of the 
debate

on the issue of homosexuality?   I think I know the answer, or the best answer

when all is said. Because the minute it becomes possible for me to have access

to a public forum I would demolish each and every argument in defense

of homosexuality, in defense of homosexual rights, or in defense of

homosexual (sham) marriage.


In other words, there are no arguments that can prevail against my arguments,

Which proves my point:  All the successes of homosexuals in the years since 1973

are travesties, worthless, and are supported by nothing substantive at all.



The consensus on the issue which is touted by people who are part of the 
establishment

is garbage, so much  crap, and deserves to be totally repudiated.


Try to defeat my arguments; you  can't.


The best that can be done is to censor me, to shut me up by means

of denial of a public forum.  Which , you don't need to guess,

displeases me considerably and makes me all the more determined

to carry on and speak out as best I can.  And, O yes, when I finally do prevail

you can bet that I will take full revenge on everyone who has stood in my way

these past years, I intend to ruin reputations and careers from

one end of the country to the other, and I do not care

what anyone's politics may be, I detest both the Left and the Right

approximately equally.


In case you would like to know why I persist



Billy Rojas




-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion With REPLY

[Billy Rojas]

Chris:

Thanks for the kind words.


BTW, anybody can become an expert in world religions and the history of 
religion.

All it takes is intense study of various religions and their histories

for maybe 40 or 50 years. Anyone can do it...



:-/

Billy



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:15 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion


An amazing work Billy.  The analogies are very interesting.  Your knowledge of 
religions is astounding to me.

Chris



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Billy Rojas
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:27 AM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion



The core of the "passion narrative" in the Inanna story concerns

her actions following Dumuzi's death.



What should be understood was that, if not at the beginning in 2650 BC,

no later than ca. 2350 BC, Inanna was regarded as an incarnate Goddess.

This was not merely something along the lines of Gilgamesh.  In his case

he was said to have been one third man and two-thirds divine being in

the form of a human being.  About which my skepticism could not be

greater even if, anon, Gilgamesh, also an historic person, clearly was

a "hero."  Take this in the sense of leading characters in the Odyssey,

a book that was at least partly modeled on the saga of the

Epic of Gilgamesh, the world's first "novel."  The Mesopotamians

did not understand it that way, for them it had the status, or close

to the status, of scripture.



In any case, the Sumerians and those who followed them, held the belief

that the "stars"  -some of which were planets-  embodied deities. Above

all celestial bodies was an unseen deity and his unseen female deity wife,

but after that among all deities, at the highest rank at some periods of 
history anyway,

was Inanna, viz, at a later time known as Ishtar.



Her celestial brother was Shamash, Utu in Sumerian language, God of the Sun,

and deity of Justice.



Inanna first existed in the heavens as "Venus" and at some point in, say, about 
2675 BC,

she manifested on Earth as a baby girl, then grown up into a young woman.

This, whatever anyone today may think, was what the Mesopotamians believed.

The point here is to establish what the Sumerians and other peoples believed,

not to pass judgement on truth claims.



The "office" of  High Priestess was exalted.  In some respects you can think

of her as a female pope, that was approximately her status, with the 
qualification

that in some respects she was more important to the Sumerians than the pope

is for Catholics, at least to speak of the "modern" papacy starting in the

19th century.  In the pre-modern era the popes had powers that were

closer to that of the High Priestess as known in the Sumerian era.



This power not only derived from her divine attributes but from the fact that

the temples of that long past era were de facto banks   -that was where the 
bulk of

the wealth of the state was sequestered, where economic records were kept,

where specie (gold, silver, gemstones) was kept, or large quantities were kept,

and the High Priestess oversaw the temple institution as well as acting

as landlady over large tracts of land; and many lower rank priestesses

were land owners in their own right.



Which is to say that it was no small thing when Inanna mourned for Dumuzi

and not only mourned, sought to free him from the bonds of death.  For Inanna

resolved to visit the Netherworld (really not any different than the Hebrew

concept for Sheol) to secure Dumuzi's release from its grasp by sacrificing

her own life if that was what it might take.



This is the crux of the passion narrative.



The exact details of this are unclear but the story has it that Inanna

visited the entrance to the Netherworld, presumably a physical place,

perhaps in the mountains somewhere.  Or possibly in or near the

city of Cutha, whose chief deity was none other than Chemosh,

in later tradition anyway, the husband of the Queen of the Underworld,

Ereshkigal. Which may sound a little complicated but, when you think

about it all, this story isn't worse in complexity than

any of the Gospel narratives.



BTW, Inanna had three sisters. You have been introduced to Geshtinanna,

and Ereshkigal was another; the third was Saltu, later known as Discordia,

as the name suggests, the deity of discord   -unpredictability, biting humor,

irrationality in human affairs, and so forth.



It is Ereshkigal who concerns us now. And in the original Sumerian story,

Ereshkigal was supreme in the abode of the dead. She made all the rules

and decreed the fates of all the deceased.  Ereshkigal's "residence" was in

the low

Re: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion

[Billy Rojas]

From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:15 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion


An amazing work Billy.  The analogies are very interesting.  Your knowledge of 
religions is astounding to me.

Chris



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Billy Rojas
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:27 AM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: [RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion



The core of the "passion narrative" in the Inanna story concerns

her actions following Dumuzi's death.



What should be understood was that, if not at the beginning in 2650 BC,

no later than ca. 2350 BC, Inanna was regarded as an incarnate Goddess.

This was not merely something along the lines of Gilgamesh.  In his case

he was said to have been one third man and two-thirds divine being in

the form of a human being.  About which my skepticism could not be

greater even if, anon, Gilgamesh, also an historic person, clearly was

a "hero."  Take this in the sense of leading characters in the Odyssey,

a book that was at least partly modeled on the saga of the

Epic of Gilgamesh, the world's first "novel."  The Mesopotamians

did not understand it that way, for them it had the status, or close

to the status, of scripture.



In any case, the Sumerians and those who followed them, held the belief

that the "stars"  -some of which were planets-  embodied deities. Above

all celestial bodies was an unseen deity and his unseen female deity wife,

but after that among all deities, at the highest rank at some periods of 
history anyway,

was Inanna, viz, at a later time known as Ishtar.



Her celestial brother was Shamash, Utu in Sumerian language, God of the Sun,

and deity of Justice.



Inanna first existed in the heavens as "Venus" and at some point in, say, about 
2675 BC,

she manifested on Earth as a baby girl, then grown up into a young woman.

This, whatever anyone today may think, was what the Mesopotamians believed.

The point here is to establish what the Sumerians and other peoples believed,

not to pass judgement on truth claims.



The "office" of  High Priestess was exalted.  In some respects you can think

of her as a female pope, that was approximately her status, with the 
qualification

that in some respects she was more important to the Sumerians than the pope

is for Catholics, at least to speak of the "modern" papacy starting in the

19th century.  In the pre-modern era the popes had powers that were

closer to that of the High Priestess as known in the Sumerian era.



This power not only derived from her divine attributes but from the fact that

the temples of that long past era were de facto banks   -that was where the 
bulk of

the wealth of the state was sequestered, where economic records were kept,

where specie (gold, silver, gemstones) was kept, or large quantities were kept,

and the High Priestess oversaw the temple institution as well as acting

as landlady over large tracts of land; and many lower rank priestesses

were land owners in their own right.



Which is to say that it was no small thing when Inanna mourned for Dumuzi

and not only mourned, sought to free him from the bonds of death.  For Inanna

resolved to visit the Netherworld (really not any different than the Hebrew

concept for Sheol) to secure Dumuzi's release from its grasp by sacrificing

her own life if that was what it might take.



This is the crux of the passion narrative.



The exact details of this are unclear but the story has it that Inanna

visited the entrance to the Netherworld, presumably a physical place,

perhaps in the mountains somewhere.  Or possibly in or near the

city of Cutha, whose chief deity was none other than Chemosh,

in later tradition anyway, the husband of the Queen of the Underworld,

Ereshkigal. Which may sound a little complicated but, when you think

about it all, this story isn't worse in complexity than

any of the Gospel narratives.



BTW, Inanna had three sisters. You have been introduced to Geshtinanna,

and Ereshkigal was another; the third was Saltu, later known as Discordia,

as the name suggests, the deity of discord   -unpredictability, biting humor,

irrationality in human affairs, and so forth.



It is Ereshkigal who concerns us now. And in the original Sumerian story,

Ereshkigal was supreme in the abode of the dead. She made all the rules

and decreed the fates of all the deceased.  Ereshkigal's "residence" was in

the lowest strata of the Netherworld, its seventh  subterranean level.





We learn that the body of Dumuzi was being kept in that 7th level.

Inanna had to get to that level in order to persuade Ereshkigal to

release Dumuzi.  To make that possible, In

[RC] Sacred Story Part # 3 -conclusion

[Billy Rojas]

The core of the "passion narrative" in the Inanna story concerns

her actions following Dumuzi's death.


What should be understood was that, if not at the beginning in 2650 BC,

no later than ca. 2350 BC, Inanna was regarded as an incarnate Goddess.

This was not merely something along the lines of Gilgamesh.  In his case

he was said to have been one third man and two-thirds divine being in

the form of a human being.  About which my skepticism could not be

greater even if, anon, Gilgamesh, also an historic person, clearly was

a "hero."  Take this in the sense of leading characters in the Odyssey,

a book that was at least partly modeled on the saga of the

Epic of Gilgamesh, the world's first "novel."  The Mesopotamians

did not understand it that way, for them it had the status, or close

to the status, of scripture.


In any case, the Sumerians and those who followed them, held the belief

that the "stars"  -some of which were planets-  embodied deities. Above

all celestial bodies was an unseen deity and his unseen female deity wife,

but after that among all deities, at the highest rank at some periods of 
history anyway,

was Inanna, viz, at a later time known as Ishtar.


Her celestial brother was Shamash, Utu in Sumerian language, God of the Sun,

and deity of Justice.


Inanna first existed in the heavens as "Venus" and at some point in, say, about 
2675 BC,

she manifested on Earth as a baby girl, then grown up into a young woman.

This, whatever anyone today may think, was what the Mesopotamians believed.

The point here is to establish what the Sumerians and other peoples believed,

not to pass judgement on truth claims.


The "office" of  High Priestess was exalted.  In some respects you can think

of her as a female pope, that was approximately her status, with the 
qualification

that in some respects she was more important to the Sumerians than the pope

is for Catholics, at least to speak of the "modern" papacy starting in the

19th century.  In the pre-modern era the popes had powers that were

closer to that of the High Priestess as known in the Sumerian era.


This power not only derived from her divine attributes but from the fact that

the temples of that long past era were de facto banks   -that was where the 
bulk of

the wealth of the state was sequestered, where economic records were kept,

where specie (gold, silver, gemstones) was kept, or large quantities were kept,

and the High Priestess oversaw the temple institution as well as acting

as landlady over large tracts of land; and many lower rank priestesses

were land owners in their own right.


Which is to say that it was no small thing when Inanna mourned for Dumuzi

and not only mourned, sought to free him from the bonds of death.  For Inanna

resolved to visit the Netherworld (really not any different than the Hebrew

concept for Sheol) to secure Dumuzi's release from its grasp by sacrificing

her own life if that was what it might take.


This is the crux of the passion narrative.


The exact details of this are unclear but the story has it that Inanna

visited the entrance to the Netherworld, presumably a physical place,

perhaps in the mountains somewhere.  Or possibly in or near the

city of Cutha, whose chief deity was none other than Chemosh,

in later tradition anyway, the husband of the Queen of the Underworld,

Ereshkigal. Which may sound a little complicated but, when you think

about it all, this story isn't worse in complexity than

any of the Gospel narratives.


BTW, Inanna had three sisters. You have been introduced to Geshtinanna,

and Ereshkigal was another; the third was Saltu, later known as Discordia,

as the name suggests, the deity of discord   -unpredictability, biting humor,

irrationality in human affairs, and so forth.


It is Ereshkigal who concerns us now. And in the original Sumerian story,

Ereshkigal was supreme in the abode of the dead. She made all the rules

and decreed the fates of all the deceased.  Ereshkigal's "residence" was in

the lowest strata of the Netherworld, its seventh  subterranean level.



We learn that the body of Dumuzi was being kept in that 7th level.

Inanna had to get to that level in order to persuade Ereshkigal to

release Dumuzi.  To make that possible, Inanna had to persuade

each of seven gate-keepers to allow her to enter each of their domains.

At each gate the admission was her willingness to remove one "veil."

viz., article of clothing.


As you might surmise this theme eventually was secularized as a form

of dance known historically as the "dance of the seven veils."  Which,

of course, surfaces in the New Testament, in that case motivated

by the worst kind of intent, causing death to the righteous.

In the Sumerian original the motivation was the resurrection from death

of someone who was righteous.


To summarize, in the end, Inanna was as naked as she had been as a newborn 
infant

when she was incarnated on Earth.  She also had to pay a price a

[RC] Sacred Story Part # 2 in process

[Billy Rojas]

A few details should be added to the rough sketch of the story that has been 
told

so far.   Dumuzi (Tammuz) was primarily known for his animal husbandry as

the overseer and owner of an estate. Specifically he was a sheep herder,

that is, a shepherd. That was not all he did, surely there was an orchard

of some kind, and in all probability he grew barley, as did most Sumerians

who owned land, but sheep were central to everything else as I understand

the story.


This is important to know inasmuch as the motif of religious-leader-as-shepherd

is central to the New Testament much later in time. But there are no shepherds

as such, not that I know about, either among the Hebrew prophets or among

the original leadership of the Christian movement, including Christ.

The one actual shepherd in Western religious leadership  tradition

happens to be  Dumuzi.


Did Dumuzi / Tammuz traditions survive that long?  Heck, they have survived

to the 21st century. There still is a Jewish month of Tamuz, for example.

And how many men do you know who are named Thomas?  The etymology

of that name, Thomas, is none other than Tammuz.  Maybe this doesn't mean

too terribly much, Martin Luther's name, Martin, derives from the Roman

God of war, Mars, but traditions can persists even when we are unaware

of their origins.


About Dumuzi,  there is general agreement among scholars that his particular

story is an amalgam.  A Sumerian religious "orthodoxy" was in place no later

than the Ur III era (think 2000 BC or thereabouts) and it clearly combined

disparate sub-plots that once had been central to various city states, each

of which had some claim to Dumizi's legacy as their part of Sumerian 
civilization.

In this context it should be noted that Dumuzi was also lord of the

"tree of like," namely, as Sumerians understood it, the date palm.


Dumuzi was also associated with alcoholic beverages, especially beer,

for which the Sumerians had a reputation and exported quantities

as part of their trade networks. They also were noted for their

fine wines, but about that drink, the deity to refer to was

Inanna's sister (later deified), Geshtinanna. What does any

of this have to do with Christ?  Well, what if I told you

that the first "signs" of Jesus' ministry were revealed in the

context of a get together at which large quantities of wine

were served?  That, of course, is exactly what the second chapter

of the Gospel of John says; the setting was the wedding at Cana.



As far as the narrative had gone yesterday was the information that

Dumuzi was attacked by marauders as he worked his estate; he later died

as a result of his injuries at the hands of these "bandits" or "soldiers"  -how 
best

to characterize the raiders is uncertain.


News of Dumuzi's death reached Inanna and she was inconsolable.  As was

her sister Geshtinanna, and Dumuzi's mother.  Hence began the tradition

each July of women weeping and wailing for Dumuzi  /  Tammuz.

This was in a religious context as part of the belief system.


So what?


I'll tell you so what.


First, a weeping and wailing tradition has continued into modern times among 
Jews,

although, to be sure,  since late Biblical times this has been limited to men 
only.

Regardless, it is clear enough that the tradition began in Mesopotamia.  But

there was a "men only" variant, namely self flagellation.  This is a well known

custom among the Shiah of Iraq and to a lesser extent in Iran. It is also

a tradition among the so-called Penitentes of New Mexico, Spain,

and the Philippines.   But as far as most Catholics are concerned

this is some sort of penultimate Christian observance. Actually, it is not.

The origins date to Uruk some time after 2650 BC in the context

of the death of Dumuzi.


Well, sure, you may say, "but I believe in the Bible and it does not concern 
me"?

Uh, huh.  Here is a little Bible verse; it would be nice if you explained things

in some way that makes good sense


Ezekiel 8: 14 has the prophet visiting the temple in Jerusalem; "and there I saw

women sitting and wailing for Tammuz."  Look it up; I am not inventing anything.


To be certain, Ezekiel did not like this one little bit; he was very unhappy 
about it.

But this begs the question: How in the world did that happen?   The Jews of the 
time

did not invent things either; they got the idea from somewhere. And just as 
clearly,

it meant something important to many Jewish women.  Actually, it would be

better to say "Hebrew women" since strict monotheistic Judaism was not current

at the time.  I am convinced of the findings of the late Raphael Patai that

strict monotheism was the product of events after the era of Amos, and that

Moses, while he may have had beliefs that may be called "proto-monotheistic"

was not a pure monotheist himself.  He did, for instance, regard the religious

cult object Nehushtan as a vital part of his spiritual observances, and the

strict monotheists of a much

[RC] [ RC ] Why do Marxists and others obsess over secondary matters? *** *

[Billy Rojas]

Hello again,  Karthik Navayan.

I am gratified that you want to post my essay in your blog.

No concerns at all, you know what you are doing and

from what I can tell your motivation is all for the good.


Billy R.



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Dr.B. Karthik Navayan 
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 6:05 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] Why do Marxists and others obsess over secondary 
matters?

Hello again, Billy Rojas,
I am finding your views on economics  important and would like to post it to my 
blog. Let me know if you have any concerns.
Regards, Karthik Navayan


On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 5:53 am Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Ernie:

Marx stood Hegel on his head; it is only fair that we stand Marx on his head.


What determines value in an economy?  Whatever labor and goods that are

required to win the favors of the opposite sex.  Since this will vary from

one man to the next, one woman to the next, the economic system will

always be structurally irrational.  Not totally crazy, but not at all

wholly rational, indeed, far from it even if anyone can detect

some modicum or order   -which is dictated by the logic

of production and exchange. Yet all the fuss is ever and always

the result of desire for the services of the opposite sex.


Each sex has need of the other, like it or not, and love makes the economy go 
'round.


To say the same thing, this also means taking into account the needs of 
families,

of the kids involved, of any pets, of gardens that may be grown to cultivate

veggies for the household, and so forth even if, in our world, "gardening"

is by proxy, in Iowa or the San Joaquin Valley or Mexico.


Throughout all of history wars have been fought for access to women

and women have played the economic game to procure decent homes

for themselves in which to raise children.


 A man by himself, is satisfied with simple things, hell, next-to-nothing
will do just fine it it includes what he considers necessities, whether

enough beer or enough smokes or enough gas money to run his jalopy.

Add a woman to the equation and you get a man possessed. His needs

now become gargantuan:  A fine house that costs $350,000, a new car

that costs $29,995,  clothes for everyone concerned, only quality garments

will do, not worn out jeans that had been good enough in an earlier time,

and so forth, for computers, TV entertainment, discretionary money

for restaurants or concerts, and so forth.  This results in a lot of concern

about what government policies will facilitate one's new lifestyle

and which political movements may threaten security or affluence.


It also means new priorities. A single man may not give a hoot about

jewelry, and why should he?  Why get hung up about glittering trinkets?
But with a woman in the picture, by God he had better buy her some

diamonds or emeralds because gemstones are her insurance against

his dying early, or  his philandering, or his illness that ruins a family

finances.  And there had better be expenditures for status items

more generally, so that the kiddies, when they grow up,

can make their families proud and the best way to do that

is to trade on status to get them admitted to a quality university

or take vacations where they will meet other high-status young people,

and so forth.   It all hangs together.



Take sex out of the equation and economics is a crap shoot

with twenty different theories each making some sense but

by no means are any of these theories the last word

and to take any literally is to guarantee failure.

The motor of economics is sex, plain and simple.

Or plain and complex s'il vous plait, but you get the idea.


In other words there is a reason why prostitution is called

the world's oldest profession.  Sex has intrinsic value;

as a rule it results in the perpetuation of the species,

and what could be more valuable than that?


But it also means pride in self, hence all kinds of positive feelings

that make life seem worthwhile and worth the trouble.   Whether or not

women value sex intrinsically you can decide for yourself,

but for  sure they value it for purposes of motherhood

and if for no other reason it therefore has the highest

possible value, worth any sacrifice.


This is the real foundation of economics.



Billy

Chicago School of New Economics



_






From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Centroids 
mailto:drer...@radicalcentrism.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:22 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Why Marxists obsess over labor


This was really helpful. I could never understand why Marxis

[RC] [ RC ] Why do Marxists and others obsess over secondary matters?

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Marx stood Hegel on his head; it is only fair that we stand Marx on his head.


What determines value in an economy?  Whatever labor and goods that are

required to win the favors of the opposite sex.  Since this will vary from

one man to the next, one woman to the next, the economic system will

always be structurally irrational.  Not totally crazy, but not at all

wholly rational, indeed, far from it even if anyone can detect

some modicum or order   -which is dictated by the logic

of production and exchange. Yet all the fuss is ever and always

the result of desire for the services of the opposite sex.


Each sex has need of the other, like it or not, and love makes the economy go 
'round.


To say the same thing, this also means taking into account the needs of 
families,

of the kids involved, of any pets, of gardens that may be grown to cultivate

veggies for the household, and so forth even if, in our world, "gardening"

is by proxy, in Iowa or the San Joaquin Valley or Mexico.


Throughout all of history wars have been fought for access to women

and women have played the economic game to procure decent homes

for themselves in which to raise children.


 A man by himself, is satisfied with simple things, hell, next-to-nothing
will do just fine it it includes what he considers necessities, whether

enough beer or enough smokes or enough gas money to run his jalopy.

Add a woman to the equation and you get a man possessed. His needs

now become gargantuan:  A fine house that costs $350,000, a new car

that costs $29,995,  clothes for everyone concerned, only quality garments

will do, not worn out jeans that had been good enough in an earlier time,

and so forth, for computers, TV entertainment, discretionary money

for restaurants or concerts, and so forth.  This results in a lot of concern

about what government policies will facilitate one's new lifestyle

and which political movements may threaten security or affluence.


It also means new priorities. A single man may not give a hoot about

jewelry, and why should he?  Why get hung up about glittering trinkets?
But with a woman in the picture, by God he had better buy her some

diamonds or emeralds because gemstones are her insurance against

his dying early, or  his philandering, or his illness that ruins a family

finances.  And there had better be expenditures for status items

more generally, so that the kiddies, when they grow up,

can make their families proud and the best way to do that

is to trade on status to get them admitted to a quality university

or take vacations where they will meet other high-status young people,

and so forth.   It all hangs together.



Take sex out of the equation and economics is a crap shoot

with twenty different theories each making some sense but

by no means are any of these theories the last word

and to take any literally is to guarantee failure.

The motor of economics is sex, plain and simple.

Or plain and complex s'il vous plait, but you get the idea.


In other words there is a reason why prostitution is called

the world's oldest profession.  Sex has intrinsic value;

as a rule it results in the perpetuation of the species,

and what could be more valuable than that?


But it also means pride in self, hence all kinds of positive feelings

that make life seem worthwhile and worth the trouble.   Whether or not

women value sex intrinsically you can decide for yourself,

but for  sure they value it for purposes of motherhood

and if for no other reason it therefore has the highest

possible value, worth any sacrifice.


This is the real foundation of economics.



Billy

Chicago School of New Economics



_






From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:22 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Why Marxists obsess over labor


This was really helpful. I could never understand why Marxists obsessed so much 
over labor, and utterly disregarded the multiplicative power of capital 
investment


The Diamond-Water Paradox and the Subjective Theory of Value
http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2018/04/03/the-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value/

[http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/Carl-Menger.png]

The Diamond-Water Paradox and the Subjective Theory of Value | The Partially 
Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and 
Blog
partiallyexaminedlife.com
Why do diamonds cost more than water, when water is essential to life? The 
answer eluded both Smith and Marx before its resolution arrived in the form of 
the Marginal Revolution.


(via Instapaper)

_

[RC] [ RC ] Analysis of USA vs China and future implications ECONOMICS

[Billy Rojas]

[Imprimis]
How to Meet the Strategic Challenge Posed by China
March 2018 • Volume 47, Number 
3
 • David P. Goldman
David P. Goldman
Columnist, Asia Times


David P. Goldman is a columnist for Asia Times. He also writes regularly for PJ 
Media and the Claremont Review of Books and is the classical music critic for 
Tablet magazine. He has directed research at investment banks and served as a 
consultant for the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. A 
senior fellow of the London Institute for Policy Studies, he is the author of 
How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam Is Dying Too). In 2017, he was a Pulliam 
Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism at Hillsdale College.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 21, 2018, in 
Bonita Springs, Florida, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.



China poses a formidable strategic challenge to America, but we should keep in 
mind that it is in large part motivated by insecurity and fear. America has 
inherent strengths that China does not. And the greatest danger to America is 
not a lack of strength, but complacency.

China is a phenomenon unlike anything in economic history. The average Chinese 
consumes 17 times more today than in 1987. This is like the difference between 
driving a car and riding a bicycle or between indoor plumbing and an outhouse. 
In an incredibly short period of time, this formerly backward country has 
lifted itself into the very first rank of world economies.

Over the same period, China has moved approximately 600 million people from the 
countryside to the cities—the equivalent of moving the entire population of 
Europe from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. To accommodate those 
people, it built the equivalent of a new London, plus a new Berlin, Rome, 
Glasgow, Helsinki, Naples, and Lyons. And of course, moving people whose 
ancestors spent millennia in the monotony of traditional village life and 
bringing them into the industrial world led to an explosion of productivity.

Where does America stand in respect to China? By a measure economists call 
purchasing power parity, you can buy a lot more with $100 in China than you can 
in the United States. Adjusted for that measure, the Chinese economy is already 
bigger than ours. In terms of dollars, our economy is still bigger. But the 
Chinese are gaining on us, and in the next eight to ten years their 
economy—unlike the economies of our previous competitors—will catch up.

China, on the other hand, is an empire based on the coercion of unwilling 
people. Whereas the United States became a great nation populated by people who 
chose to be part of it, China conquered peoples of different ethnicities and 
with different languages and has kept them together by force. Whereas our 
principle is E Pluribus Unum, the Chinese reality is E Pluribus Pluribus with a 
dictator at the top.

China once covered a relatively small geographic area. It took about 1,500 
years for it to reach its current borders in the ninth century. These borders 
are natural frontiers. China can’t expand over the Himalayas to India, while to 
its extreme west is desert and to its east is the ocean. So China is not an 
inherently expansionist power.

Nor is China unified. It has a written system of several thousand characters 
that takes seven years of elementary education to learn, working four hours a 
day with an ink brush, ink pot, and paper. Learning these characters well 
enough to read a school textbook or a newspaper is how the Chinese are 
socialized. The current generation is the first where the majority of Chinese 
understand the common language, due to the centralization of the state and the 
mass media. But the Chinese still speak very different languages. Cantonese and 
Mandarin are as different as Finnish and French. In Hong Kong, you’ll see two 
Chinese screaming at each other in broken English because one speaks Mandarin 
and the other speaks Cantonese and they don’t have a word in common.

China is inherently unstable because all that holds it together is an imperial 
culture and the tax collector in Beijing. It is like a collection of very 
powerful, oppositely charged magnets held together by super glue—it looks 
stable, but it isn’t.

Within the living memory of older Chinese, China underwent an era of national 
division, warlordism, civil war, starvation, and degradation. The Century of 
Humiliation, as the Chinese call it—which began with the opium wars in 1848 and 
ended with the success of the Communist Revolution in 1949—was a century in 
which civil war claimed untold millions of lives, and the terror of a return to 
those conditions is a specter that haunts the Chinese leadership.

China, like R

[RC] Wall Street Journal -article about Easter

[Billy Rojas]

Wall Street Journal

The Easter Effect and How It Changed the World
The first Christians were baffled by what they called ‘the Resurrection.’ Their 
struggle to understand it brought about astonishing success for their faith


[‘Resurrection of Christ’ by Sodoma (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi).]
‘Resurrection of Christ’ by Sodoma (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi). PHOTO: BRIDGEMAN 
IMAGES

By
George Weigel
March 30, 2018 10:05 a.m. ET
578 
COMMENTS

In the year 312, just before his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge 
won him the undisputed leadership of the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great 
had a heavenly vision of Christian symbols. That augury led him, a year later, 
to end all legal sanctions on the public profession of Christianity.
Or so a pious tradition has it.

But there’s a more mundane explanation for Constantine’s decision: He was a 
politician who had shrewdly decided to join the winning side. By the early 4th 
century, Christians likely counted for between a quarter and a half of the 
population of the Roman Empire, and their exponential growth seemed likely to 
continue.
How did this happen? How did a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of 
the Mediterranean world become such a dominant force in just two and a half 
centuries? The historical sociology of this extraordinary phenomenon has been 
explored by Rodney Stark of Baylor University, who argues that Christianity 
modeled a nobler way of life than what was on offer elsewhere in the rather 
brutal society of the day. In Christianity, women were respected as they 
weren’t in classical culture and played a critical role in bringing men to the 
faith and attracting converts. In an age of plagues, the readiness of 
Christians to care for all the sick, not just their own, was a factor, as was 
the impressive witness to faith of countless martyrs. Christianity also grew 
from within because Christians had larger families, a byproduct of their 
faith’s prohibition of contraception, abortion and infanticide.

For theologians who like to think that arguments won the day for the Christian 
faith, this sort of historical reconstruction is not particularly gratifying, 
but it makes a lot of human sense. Prof. Stark’s analysis still leaves us with 
a question, though: How did all that modeling of a compelling, alternative way 
of life get started? And that, in turn, brings us back to that gaggle of 
nobodies in the early first century A.D. and what happened to them.

What happened to them was the Easter Effect.

There is no accounting for the rise of Christianity without weighing the 
revolutionary effect on those nobodies of what they called “the Resurrection”: 
their encounter with the one whom they embraced as the Risen Lord, whom they 
first knew as the itinerant Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and who died an 
agonizing and shameful death on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem. As N.T. 
Wright, one of the Anglosphere’s pre-eminent biblical scholars, makes clear, 
that first generation answered the question of why they were Christians with a 
straightforward answer: because Jesus was raised from the dead.

Now that, as some disgruntled listeners once complained about Jesus’ preaching, 
is “a hard saying.” It was no less challenging two millennia ago than it is 
today. And one of the most striking things about the New Testament accounts of 
Easter, and what followed in the days immediately after Easter, is that the 
Gospel writers and editors carefully preserved the memory of the first 
Christians’ bafflement, skepticism and even fright about what had happened to 
their former teacher and what was happening to them.

[‘The Incredulity of St. Thomas’ by Caravaggio.]
‘The Incredulity of St. Thomas’ by Caravaggio. PHOTO: BRIDGEMAN IMAGES

In Mark’s gospel, Mary Magdalene and other women in Jesus’ entourage find his 
tomb empty and a young man sitting nearby telling them that “Jesus of Nazareth, 
who was crucified…has risen; he is not here.” But they had no idea what that 
was all about, “and went out and fled from the tomb…[and] said nothing to 
anyone, for they were afraid.”

Two disciples walking to Emmaus from Jerusalem on Easter afternoon haven’t a 
clue as to who’s talking with them along their way, interpreting the scriptures 
and explaining Jesus’ suffering as part of his messianic mission. They don’t 
even recognize who it is that sits down to supper with them until he breaks 
bread and asks a blessing: “…and their eyes were opened and they recognized 
him.” They high-tail it back to Jerusalem to tell the other friends of Jesus, 
who report that Peter has had a similarly strange experience, but when “Jesus 
himself stood among them…they were startled and frightened, and supposed that 
they saw a ghost.”
Some time later, Peter, John and others in Jesus’ core group are fishing on the 
Sea of Tiberias. “Jesus stood on the be

[RC] [ RC ] Engaging Ideas

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

The phrase "engaging ideas" is something I have used in the past; you made

use of it in a recent post.  Other people have also spoken those words

at different times when discussing ideas they want to promote

or to try and describe, say, a spirited discussion, a story of great interest,

the emergence of strong curiosity about something, someone's motivation,

desire to solve a puzzle that catches hold of one's imagination, and so forth.


What are "engaging ideas"?


I did a short search on the Web and can only report that there were just a few 
sites

that referred to "engaging ideas."


The Aspen Ideas Festival describes its goal as working with

"engaging ideas that matter."


Enclosed below is an essay with the title,  "20 Engaging Ideas For Lesson 
Starters

& Plenaries"  - a plenary is a working meeting.  Another essay that you can

look up has the title, "Engaging Ideas:  The Professor's Guide to

Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning

in the Classroom;" the author is John C. Bean. He made the point

that his purpose is to encourage inquiry, exploration, discussion,

and debate.



Where does this get us?


If we were talking about story writing a rough translation of an engaging idea

would be "hook."  What is it that makes someone want to read a novel or

short story?  There surely are analogues in sales, political campaigns,

missionary outreach programs, ad campaigns,. marketing, psychological

counseling, journalism, philosophy, and you-name-it.


What catches someone's attention?   What makes someone interested

in learning new things about a subject or issue or life story?


It would be useful to think about this for a while. For myself, for starters,

I can at least say that controversy interests me, at least if the topic

has some sort of intrinsic value to me.  For instance, generally speaking

the history of the Civil rights movement does not have much interest

because so much of what you may read consists of hagiography,

or of regurgitating facts we have all heard 1000 times. But C-Span

featured a discussion with the author of a book about the life of Rosa Parks.

It turns out that, while she started as a "conventional" Christian who

worked with groups like the SCLC, at one point in her life she visited

Japan and became a Buddhist.  Presumably this was not an abandonment

of Christian faith but an addition to it since there is no evidence that

she ever forsook her basic social values.


For me this is a "hook," an "engaging idea"  -because of my interest in

seeking ways to make some kind of useful relationship between

Christians and Buddhists possible, to work together toward objectives

each set of people believe in an seek to promote to the public at large.


Still, for some people  -thinking mostly about "staunch conservative

Christians" in America and Nicheren Buddhists in Japan, viz,

the "fundamentalists" among Buddhists, this is not engaging at all,

it is a threat and something to recoil from in horror.


So, there's that.


Similarly, the fact is that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote two scholarly papers

about Zoroastrianism while he was a grad student in theology.  He also delivered

at least one sermon (at Riverside Church) where he talked about Zoroastrian

religion as part of his remarks.  For my own reasons this is very interesting,

for some others this is either bewildering or dangerous.



Engaging ideas, then, may mean one thing to some people and something

very different to other people.



A good story that I can identify with is also a hook.  Doubtless this can be 
said

for just about  everyone else  -but what constitutes a good story for me

may be very different than for "you"  (for anyone else).


This is the dilemma of "engaging ideas."



For your consideration

Billy








Rebel Angel



September 9, 2015

20 Engaging Ideas For Lesson Starters & Plenaries




Some of you might remember that before I worked at Bronco doing digital 
marketing, I actually had a little stint (almost a year in fact) as a teacher. 
While I ultimately decided that wasn’t the career path I wanted to take, I did 
love doing that job. It’s partly the reason that I do Brownies now as I love 
working with children, so volunteering a bit of my time weekly (or more often 
as I’m slowly discovering!) is my way of contributing to that still without 
having to do it as a full time job.

One of the hard parts of the role of a teacher though is always being on the 
ball and having fresh content ideas – similar to blogging and my job now I 
guess, except focused on lessons rather than words online. Is there anything 
worse than hearing the phrase: “So kids, what did we cover last lesson?” It’s a 
bit uninspiring and isn’t the best way to grab the attention of young minds. 
Instead, as a teacher, you should look into various 
starters

[RC] Re: [ RC ] New Economics Needs a New Invisible Hand - Evonomics

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Good article.  What is needs, though, is a good story line, some sort of 
narrative

to make the ideas in it "real" in a tangible way.  There are bits and pieces of 
a story

in the essay, but something with flesh on its bones.


But I agree with the main point: Design something and you have a stake in the 
outcome

and built-in motivation to make it work.


Billy



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 10:20 AM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Why New Economics Needs a New Invisible Hand - Evonomics

“We must learn to function in two capacities: As designers of large-scale 
social systems and as participants in the social systems that we design. As 
participants, we don’t need to have the welfare of the whole system in mind, 
but as designers we do. There is no way around it. Anything short will result 
in social dysfunction”

Why New Economics Needs a New Invisible Hand - Evonomics
http://evonomics.com/the-new-invisible-hand-david-sloan-wilson/
[http://evonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/invisible.jpg]

Why New Economics Needs a New Invisible Hand - 
Evonomics
evonomics.com
The New Invisible Hand suggests the existence of a middle path.


via Instapaper


Sent from my iPhone

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1522437002]

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society
radicalcentrism.org
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Google Groups
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] 12 Things Everyone Should Understand About Tech – Humane Tech – Medium

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Terrific article; essential reading if you ask me.  Expresses most of my 
reservations

about tech over the past several years and adds a number of other considerations

I had never thought about. Many thanks for sending the essay, very valuable.


A few matters I have been thinking about but never written about also come to 
mind

at this time.  For example, what it good design?  Mostly (there are some 
exceptions)

I operate on the assumption first articulated by 'modern' architect Mies Van 
der Rohe,

that "form should follow function."  Ironically, for the most part I never 
could stand

his architecture,  the "glass boxes" paradigm. But the principle can be taken

in a very different direction to very good effect.


I've given thought to redesign of keyboard for example.  Actually keyboards with

individual keys, always there for you, etc.  Which, of course, is out of the 
question

for cell phones and the like.  Hence, read this as only applicable to desk tops.


My objective, if I could ever afford my own server and a stable of geeks to 
carry out

my directives, would be to make all kinds of functions you now have to dig for

within a computer system, exterior, always accessible, on a separate new 
keyboard

that can be plugged into any existing keyboard.


I saw a TED talk on TV that showed a little of what I am seeking.  Setting aside

the presenters sometimes questionable tastes in art, he had on a table before 
him,

something like a control panel to be used for radio purposes.  Click one button

and you get spooky music, press another button and you get the sounds

of a car crashing or an airplane taking off. And so forth. It was all exterior,

in the form (more or less) of a keyboard.  No need to go looking around

within a program, click this, dig for that, and finally you can access

the spooky music.  The weird music is literally a click away  -at any

time you want to use it.


Not everyone would want the same kinds of keyboards, of course. Therefore

market a series of keyboards, one for graphic artists, another for portrait 
artists, etc,

one for Rock musicians, one for classical musicians, one for landscape 
architects,

one for building developers, one for real estate agents, one for detectives,

one for journalists, one for elementary school teachers, and so forth

until every profession of any size is covered.


Every step of the way, as the article you sent emphasizes, values are built into

the system. In this case primacy would go to functionality as a high virtue.

Hence the value (for good functioning) of the tactile nature of actually keys

rather than the "looks" of a sleek surface with no "protrusions,"  everything

supposed to resemble a TV screen.


Ivan Illich, the deceased  but once famous Mexican educator and

philosopher of education,  once suggested, why don't we design cars so that

they can be easily serviced?  Why must everything under the hood be such a 
jumble

that only a trained  mechanic can do any kind of work?  Why not design an engine

so that anyone with an IQ over 90 points can actually work on his (or her) car?


All of this, of course, eventually leads to a question about functionality

in non-tech areas of life.  Including politics and even religion.


The article was also about  how ideas relate to each other.  That is,

it opens a can of worms, in this case, a really excellent can of worms

that have the value of caviar.



Billy  :-)



--





From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:35 AM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] 12 Things Everyone Should Understand About Tech – Humane Tech – 
Medium


Brilliant and sobering


12 Things Everyone Should Understand About Tech – Humane Tech – Medium
https://medium.com/humane-tech/12-things-everyone-should-understand-about-tech-d158f5a26411

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*MNyOHo2Z98OLJ-zuek0Ndg.jpeg]

12 Things Everyone Should Understand About Tech – Humane Tech – 
Medium
medium.com
Technology isn’t an industry, it’s a method of transforming the culture and 
economics of existing systems and institutions. That can be a little bit hard 
to understand if we only judge tech as a set…


(via Instapaper)


Tech is more important than ever, deeply affecting culture, politics and 
society. Given all the time we spend with our gadgets and apps, it’s essential 
to understand the principles that determine how tech affects our lives.
[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*tRF4JYa0Ze6tLK0WP2vc8g.jpeg]
Understanding technology today

Technology isn’t an 
industry

Re: [RC] Re: Is this the place for me?

[Billy Rojas]

Person:

I hope you have an interest in Radical Centrism; I think it is safe to say

that we would welcome a new perspective.  FYI, in the past we have

had discussions with a Taoist from Singapore who was active in our group

for about 2 years, and there once was a Japanese-American Buddhist from LA

who was seriously interested in music and even wrote  a classical composition

on a Radical Centrist theme.  We are certainly open to "ideas from the East."


There are all sorts of goodies in our archives but Ernie is in the best position

to tell you what to look for and how best to access it.  In terms of religion,

most of our modest membership are Evangelical but there are others

who have their own views of faith that cannot be categorized by

any conventional language.  Not sure what to say about Sam Harris.

Personally I really like (much of) his stuff; the questions he raises

are important and necessary to deal with.  And, of course, his views

on Islam are pretty much exactly my views.  Still, IMHO,

Atheists miss the boat in a number of ways; I'd love the opportunity

to have a discussion with him some day.


About RC more generally, there are several varieties.  We sometimes think

of ourselves as the West Coast variant, juxtaposed to the East Coast species

which is found at the New America Foundation and The Atlantic magazine.

We operate pretty much like an unfunded start-up in contrast to the

rather large bankroll at New America.  They are Democratic Party Lite;

we are political Independents who tilt conservative, but don't take

this as set in stone. On a number of issues  -case by case-  we

are more to the Left than New America.


What also sets us apart is that there sometimes are lively religious discussions

here and several people are professionals in the  computer biz so there is
that factor as well.



Anyway, look around, if you want to participate you would be most welcome.


Cheers

Billy

















From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of person 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
Subject: [RC] Re: Is this the place for me?

Thanks for the responses, I'll probably take some time to have a better look 
around and see where people are actually coming from. And just as your 
positions aren't boilerplate evangelical, mine aren't boilerplate Buddhist, 
which has as much variation in doctrine as other religions.

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-5, person wrote:
I came across this blog after finding much resonance with radical centrism and 
reading the manifesto almost brought me to tears with how well it aligned with 
my thinking. I took the test and was all on board and getting excited when I 
came across the one about homosexuality and then I discovered the ties to 
Christian thinking here and am wondering if this really is a place I'm 
sympatico with.  But I'm a secular Buddhist much in the mold of Sam Harris and 
I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality.

So while I seem to generally be in alignment with a complex, centrist view of 
politics, I may cut too harshly against the grain in a couple other areas so 
I'm wondering how acceptable my divergent views are around here?

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1521250199]

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society
radicalcentrism.org
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Is this the place for me?

[Billy Rojas]

Buddhism and Radical Centrism


Where to begin?   The writer asked about my views and I am more than willing

to discuss a range of ideas. But let me start with the subject of Buddhism,

which the writer identifies with. Notwithstanding the fact that I am Christian

and not in the least reluctant to say so, I am also Buddhist, de facto and

also de jure.  I don't see a conflict because both faiths are founded on

pretty much a common morality and both also rest on very similar

intellectual traditions.  Then there are examples of Christians

like Albert Schweitzer who, as strong a believer as anyone can get,

regarded Buddhism (and Hinduism more selectively) as offering

indisputable truths for Christians that they would be well advised

to make their own. Schweitzer even wrote a scholarly book

about eastern religions, especially those of India and Japan.


Some personal comments may be in order.  In Hawaii, in 1978,

I was a regular at a Shingon Buddhist community in Lahaina.

I told the missionary who had become a friend of mine that

my interest in Shingon was sincere but that I was a Christian

and nothing was going to change that fact. His reply was that

I was not the first person to say something similar and as

far as Shingon was concerned you could be a Buddhist

as well as a Christian. That was good enough for me.


This has not mattered much to me in the years since, because

I have never lived anywhere with a Shingon population; there

has been no Shingon community to associate with.  But this

does not make me less "Shingon" in outlook.  Now and then

I return to my study of Kobo Daishi, or maybe a Zen master

like Hakuin, or art inspired by Shin Buddhism.  However,

most of my study time, by far, is centered on the Bible

and upon the religious texts of Mesopotamia.



So, there's that.


Then there is Buddhist "orthodoxy" to think about.  The fact is

undeniable that, even if "California Buddhism" exists and has its own

"doctrines," it is outside the Buddhist mainstream of any Buddhist

country on Earth.  It isn't only the Dalai Lama who has made

it clear that homosexuality is antithetical to the Dharma,

there is strong opposition in historical texts as well.


On this subject the best source to turn to is a 1992 book edited

by Jose Cabezon  Buddhism, Sexuality, and Gender, especially

the article in this anthology by Leonard Zwilling, "Homosexuality

as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts."  There simply isn't any real

question about it, homosexuality is outright condemned

in all relevant classical Buddhist writings, sometimes

with Gautama himself quoted as condemning

such behavior and values


The writer should know that none of my views on homosexuality

are off the top of my head, or matters of opinion derived from

some pop culture or political source.  I pride myself as a former

college teacher as a responsible scholar of these kinds of questions

and have done the research.  In other words, sure, we can discuss

these kinds of issues all you want, but if your frame of reference

is little more than opinion or "but I know someone who is homosexual"

what you would hear in reply would not at all be what you probably

would expect.  And it sure in heck would not be Evangelical boilerplate

based on a naive reading of the Bible and nothing else.  I respect

the Evangelical position on the subject but, candidly, it seldom

is anything but poorly informed and limited.


I both know the scientific literature of the subject and have,

in my own way, contributed to that literature.



Anyway, it would be nice to have discussions with a Buddhist.

Especially if you are familiar with any of the writings of the Nestorians

in China of the T'ang era, thinking mostly about the text that has

been translated as the "Jesus Messiah Sutra."



Hopefully I haven't intimidated you, or, anyway, not intimidated you too much.




Billy san


Om Tare, tuttare, ture, svaha.



etc.

:-)






From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:18 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Is this the place for me?

Speaking for myself, I would love to have you on board!

I know Billy has strong feelings on the subject of homosexuality, but I would 
hope we can find a way to discuss our differences with respect and grace.

— Ernie P.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2018, at 06:49, person 
mailto:jamiedorseypaint...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I came across this blog after finding much resonance with radical centrism and 
reading the manifesto almost brought me to tears with how well it aligned with 
my thinking. I took the test and was all on board and getting excited when I 
came across the one about homosexuality and then I discovered the ties to 
Christian thinking here and am wondering if this really is a place I'm 
sympatico with.  But I'm a secular Bu

[RC] TEST No Text

[Billy Rojas]

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Homosexuality in Brazil -the sickening story

[Billy Rojas]

"The Religion & Society Report"Online Edition
[SwanSearch]

Our Publications:The Family in 
America  |  New 
Research  |  The 
Religion & Society 
Report  |  Family 
Update, 
Online!


Volume 23  Number 05


July / August 2006






The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society







Behind The Homosexual Tsunami in Brazil

By Julio Severo*



*Julio Severo is the author of the book O Movimento Homossexual (The Homosexual 
Movement), published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers. In 
November 2004, he gave, in the Chamber of Deputies in Brasília, the 
introductory speech in the First Evangelical Parliamentary Front Meeting. The 
first magazine of the Front also published an article by Mr. Severo on 
homosexuality. His book has been the first writing in Portuguese to expose the 
homosexual movement and it has been a reference for Christian parliamentarians 
in Brazil.

Until 1994, gay rights and parades were virtually unheard of and non-existent 
in Brazil. Yet, from 1995 on, after the first ILGA conference in Rio de 
Janeiro, homosexual activism became increasingly powerful in visibility, until 
the arrival of the Lula government, when their highest intentions and values 
became a threat and reality predominant in the Brazilian society.

The social and moral structure of Brazil in the decades of 1950 and 1960 was 
basically strong, largely because of the predominant Catholicism in more than 
90 percent of the population. In many places, evangelicals were threatened with 
lynching if they tried to evangelize, especially in small towns. Homosexual 
activity was a shameful and secret behavior, despised by the society.  A girl 
pregnant out of wedlock ran the risk of being expelled from her house. The 
Brazilian people were socially conservative, although the Carnival and public 
prostitution were tolerated.

The largest threat to the society came from radical leftist movements. 
Communists almost took control in Brazil in 1964, but the military took over 
the government and was able to stop a communist coup.

The Catholic Church was a driving force against the communist threat, but after 
Vatican II many Catholic leaders began surrendering to the Theology of 
Liberation. In the decades of 1970 and 1980, traditional Protestant churches 
embraced Protestant versions of Liberation Theology. In the late 1990s and 
early 2000, some Pentecostal and charismatic churches also subscribed. These 
leftist Christians are today known as progressistas. The Brazilian term 
progressista (progressive), according to the noted Aurélio Dictionary of 
Portuguese Language, means “someone who, though not being a member of a 
socialist or communist party, accepts and/or supports socialist or Marxist 
principles.”  So evangélicos progressistas are evangelicals committed to 
supporting and promoting the socialist agenda.

Liberation Theology can boast an important victory in Brazil, for having a 73.6 
percent Catholic population; Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the 
world. Protestants are 15.4 percent.  “Progressive” Christians are a growing 
presence and influence among both of these Christian religions.

After the military left the government in 1985, leftist politicians, supported 
by the Comunidades Eclesiais de Base (Base Ecclesiastical Communities [BECs], 
where progressive Catholic leadership encouraged poor Catholic communities to 
get involved in political action according to Liberation Theology  tenets), 
began to heavily affect the political and social system, leading Brazil 
gradually leftward. BECs were the most important support behind the main 
popular leftist party in Brazil, Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party), 
better known by its acronym PT.

With such leftism, abortion and homosexuality began to be promoted as rights in 
the decade of 1990. (In the decade of 1980, there were leftists advocating 
abortion and homosexuality, but while abortion advocates had limited visibility 
and no legal influence, the rare gay advocates had none at all — except in a 
very few isolated examples, especially in universities.) Even though there are 
no anti-sodomy laws in Brazilian society, its religious heritage had always 
been an important social factor discouraging such behavior.

Less conservative in the heart and more in the image: the current political 
ethics in Brazil  [cid:aecfeb38-e0b7-4e47-917c-ce097cbd376d] 


In Brazil, abortion is presently legal only in cases of rape and when the life 
of a mother is at risk. Because of religious influence, the fight to expand 
legal abortion ha

[RC] Re: [ RC ] History and the Bonfire of the Humanities | What good is history anyway?

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Terrific article; it is the sort of paper that should be discussed in an upper 
level

seminar, the kind of essay that I remember we discussed in upper level

seminars back in the years I was "in training" to become an historian.


Will tell you one thing, I am eternally grateful for a philosophy class

I once took on the subject of the "philosophy of history."  And if there is

one major criticism to make of "Bonfire" it is that it proceeds as if

there was no such thing as Philosophy of History.  Bad mistake.


I did not realize it at the time but I was "converted" to Collingwood

by that class.  This is in reference to RG Collingwood, a British

historian   -aka, philosopher of history .  His point can be summarized

succinctly:   The meaning of history follows from its uses in the present.

History should be useful in ways that people are conscious of   -rather

than useful in unconscious ways they never reflect upon  -because

what generally happens in that case  is that some kind of political

(or other) agenda is assumed and the agenda sets the rules

not any need for objectivity.


Grand theories are not shibboleths, however. These theories can be useful

in an of themselves, especially as motivation to study history

in the first place. Hence, to reflect on my own intellectual trajectory,

the various phases I went through, Hegel, Condorcet, Saint-Simon

and the Positivists, Vico, etc., each taught me valuable lessons and, indeed,

with some modification (actually a lot of modification) I still am

under the spell of Saint-Simon.


What do people need history for?  How about basic literacy?

History, after all, is another word for memory, and if you have

vast memory you can draw upon a wealth of historical metaphors

and, best of all, you do not ceaselessly reinvent the past.  I mean,

do you want to be well informed or not?


To use one example, Juan Williams was on the tube the other day

complaining that history, by definition, discriminates against women,

After all, it is all about "his story" not "her story."


Alas for Juan Williams this false etymology was popular in the early

years of the feminist movement of the 60s-70s,  popularized by

Betty Friedan and others.  It has nothing at all to do with

his or (lack of) her.  The root is a Greek term, "histo," meaning

tissue  -in the sense of fabric held together by weaving techniques.

Hence the Muse of history (the discipline) is the minor goddess Clotho,

the female deity of spinning.


Any well educated  and history conscious Anglican could have told you

this in the Victorian era, and maybe can still tell you  -in ways pretty much

closed to Evangelicals or "liberal Christians" today, precisely because

such believers have such a low opinion of the worth of history.

And heaven forbid that they take any interest in classical mythology.


What Collingwood also did was to insulate me from fads like

social history of various kinds, that is, from the excesses of these

recent departures into special interest pleading that are basically

subjective in character.  Collingwood has acted as a disinfectant

and maybe moreso as a  "vaccine" from bogus or specious history.


I do have an agenda, of course.  To me it is the view that  most basic about

history is the undeniable fact that religion and politics, plus culture

more generally, plus the "private cultures" each one of us carries

around in our heads, are always the direct products of our memories

and our learned memories, viz, history.  Hence we need to get history right

for the same kind of reason we need to get mastery of the English language

right; you cannot function well unless you do so,



This does not mean that you are condemned to a life of library stacks

and never go outside and enjoy nature.  My models of what should be

the norm are people like Teddy Roosevelt, an historian per se as well

as a practical politician, and also an avid outdoorsman,  Martin Luther

who not only wrote prodigiously but was a man's man and an energetic

social activist, plus people like Japanese Buddhist leader Kobo Daishi,

founder of the Shingon school, who not only was a scholar of

Asian religion and literature, but an engineer (for his era)

and a pioneer in education in his country.



There's a saying to the effect that "the Bible is true but it is not accurate."

I take that view  -with the modification that "it sometimes is not accurate

even if it IS accurate about more things than not."  Yet is can be inaccurate

and in cases the inaccuracies can be monumental.  Reference is especially

to Richard Elliott Friedman's 1987 opus, "Who Wrote the Bible?"


It is impossible to learn all the facts there are that are possible to know

about the Bible but it is quite possible to become very well informed

about a selected number of themes in the Bible that seem to you

to have special importance.


Hence one "grand theory" that I work with year in and year out is the view

that, yes

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Billy Rojas]

Dr. Navayan-

I visited your blog; it provides a useful forum for people with

serious interest in human rights issues in  India.  That certainly is a

valuable endeavor but not something I know enough about  to

offer informed commentary.  I'm not  totally in the dark about  India

but my knowledge is spotty. Maybe some year I will have the

opportunity to visit India and become far better informed.



Yes, I agree that pursuit of objectivity is what we need to focus on.

Nobody can possibly be objective about everything, and, as well,

it is important to be honest about our limitations. Still, as a college

teacher even if I am retired, one lesson you learn is that you

are responsible for presenting verified facts to your students

as much as possible, and tell them the basis of evidence

that supports knowing something as a "fact."  This is not

all that difficult   --at least if someone does not take

known facts and then make claims about things

that remain uncertain.


I don't expect a cardiologist to know 100% of everything

that can be known about the heart   -but do expect him

to work with established facts if he needs to open my chest

and do bypass surgery.  Teaching history or social science

is not nearly as dramatic but a similar principle applies.

I am obliged to tell the truth about the Mughals or the

Roman Empire but when truths are not known it is

just as vital to admit that things are not certain and

evidence still is missing,


In other words, I think we are on the same page.


Best wishes

Billy R.


---












From: Centroids 
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
Cc: Billy Rojas; radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Hi Billy,

Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a 
goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved objectivity.”

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B. Karthik Navayan 
mailto:nava...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Billy,
Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Dr. Navayan:

I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity

useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.


May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your site.


sincerely

Billy Rojas




From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan mailto:nava...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Billy Rojas,
I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your 
name.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Ernie:

There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is

no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my viewpoint

is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.


Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a procedure

like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict the 
weather

or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) earthquakes

in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design great 
bridges

that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a wide

variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology

to molecular engineering.


We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters

to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far

there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how

far we have progressed since, say, 1750.


Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases

where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play

which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.


That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard the

worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
senses.

However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences

to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific

scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this

manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking

set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets t

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Billy Rojas]

Dr. Navayan:

I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity

useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.


May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your site.


sincerely

Billy Rojas




From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan 
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Billy Rojas,
I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your 
name.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Ernie:

There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is

no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my viewpoint

is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.


Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a procedure

like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict the 
weather

or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) earthquakes

in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design great 
bridges

that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a wide

variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology

to molecular engineering.


We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters

to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far

there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how

far we have progressed since, say, 1750.


Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases

where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play

which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.


That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard the

worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
senses.

However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences

to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific

scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this

manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking

set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to

microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and

understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term

"religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized

as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.


To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard vocabulary

of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and

then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not

muddy the waters.



This said, there is far better language available to talk about

religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions.

Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by

Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes,

or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada.



Billy










From: Centroids 
mailto:drer...@radicalcentrism.org>>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social 
Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word 
“objectivity.”  How do you define it?

For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to 
affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having to 
defend a claim to objectivity.

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible anyway,

is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s,

Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity

in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide

to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence

to virulent strains of populism.


Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version

of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since.

It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into

full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms.


Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered.

This refers to t

[RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is

no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my viewpoint

is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.


Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a procedure

like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict the 
weather

or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) earthquakes

in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design great 
bridges

that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a wide

variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology

to molecular engineering.


We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters

to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far

there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how

far we have progressed since, say, 1750.


Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases

where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play

which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.


That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard the

worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
senses.

However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences

to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific

scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this

manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking

set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to

microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and

understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term

"religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized

as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.


To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard vocabulary

of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and

then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not

muddy the waters.



This said, there is far better language available to talk about

religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions.

Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by

Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes,

or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada.



Billy










From: Centroids 
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social 
Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word 
“objectivity.”  How do you define it?

For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to 
affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having to 
defend a claim to objectivity.

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible anyway,

is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s,

Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity

in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide

to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence

to virulent strains of populism.


Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version

of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since.

It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into

full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms.


Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered.

This refers to the scientific method, or as much of that method

as we can make use of in ordinary prose. For me this means

that objectivity, as much  objectivity as possible,

is the necessary foundation of Radical Centrism.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] PHILOSOPHY [ RC ] Science, Religion, and Secularism, Taylor: A Secular Age (Part A)

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Pow!  Terrific material.  This fits in perfectly with a project for myself

that I am starting to collect papers on, a project that looks closely at

"revelation," "prophecy," and the  meaning of "spirituality."


First there are current  projects to complete, and I don't expect to have

these projects finished before the end of 2018.  But looking ahead,

Charles Taylor's work seems to me to be very important.


After all, to discuss "religion" is also to discuss religious authority.

But how do you decide which religious traditions (or innovations)

have authority?  On what basis?  This question is crucial to

everything else.  We necessarily will reconstruct our values system

on some religious foundation  -even if future religion is party

a form of psychotherapy, partly a form of aesthetics, partly

a form of social organization, and partly pop philosophy

transmitted through the media and the Web. That is, in some

sense we are hard-wired for God / Goddess.  The forms this

takes can vary widely as can our awareness, but the effect

is inescapable.


Many thanks for passing along the Taylor article.



Billy


-




From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 6:34 AM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Science, Religion, and Secularism, Part XXI: Charles Taylor: A 
Secular Age (Part A)


The article I mentioned earlier. We are defined by what we can and can not 
question.

Science, Religion, and Secularism, Part XXI: Charles Taylor: A Secular Age 
(Part A)
http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2018/03/06/science-religion-and-secularism-part-xxi-charles-taylor-a-secular-age-part-a/

Science, Religion, and Secularism, Part XXI: Charles Taylor: A Secular Age 
(Part A) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy 
Podcast and 
Blog
partiallyexaminedlife.com
Of the three elements in our series—science, religion, and secularism—science 
has probably received the most philosophical attention, at least in the 
contemporary context. Indeed, the constitution of a category, "philosophy of 
religion," presumes a sectioning-off of certain topics that have, historically, 
been integral


(via Instapaper)



Of the three elements in our series—science, religion, and secularism—science 
has probably received the most philosophical attention, at least in the 
contemporary context. Indeed, the constitution of a category, “philosophy of 
religion,” presumes a sectioning-off of certain topics that have, historically, 
been integral to philosophy. It presumes, in other words, a growing distance 
between religion and philosophy. This in turn is a result of the broadening and 
deepening of secularism, which has received very little philosophical attention 
until quite recently. What I mean is that there did not have to be a 
“philosophy of religion” in a society in which religious concepts had a 
normative and unproblematic status. It’s only when that status gets called into 
question that it begins to attract intensive discussion, and there can be such 
a thing as “philosophy of religion.” What existed beforehand, at least in the 
Islamic and Christian lands (which included most of the world’s Jewish 
population as well), would have been theology, an activity that presumes the 
truth of ideas (such as the existence of God, an afterlife, and revelation), 
which are up for grabs in the philosophy of religion. Just as religious 
societies have little use for a “philosophy of religion,” so too, secular 
societies would seem to have little use for a philosophy of secularism. In both 
cases, either religion or secularism has a “taken-for-granted” status that lets 
it fly under the radar, so to speak. It’s not only our answers, but our 
questions, that define us.

In future articles, I hope to get more precise about the term “religion,” as in 
previous articles I tried to do with the term “science.” “Religion” is a 
notoriously fuzzy term, and it’s difficult to think of any one characteristic 
that does not instantly call to mind counterexamples. It calls for some 
philosophical investigation that I haven’t done yet. Often I’ve used the term 
“theology” in place of “religion,” because at least with “theology” we know 
what we’re talking about: the intellectual—as opposed to the ritual, 
devotional, ethical, etc.—aspects of faith. In this article, I’d like to begin 
a historical-philosophical explanation of our third term, secularism. We’ll be 
investigating some of the high points of Charles Taylor’s book, A Secular 
Age, a landmark exploration of secularism that won the 
Templeton Prize in 2007. Like Michael Allen Gillespie’s Theological Origins of 
Modernity, which we 

Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

"For all their many flaws, I actually am grateful to the social constructivist

for reminding us that we never know our own blind spots."


For sure, point well taken.


However, where I am these days is in full dudgeon against the extremes of

subjectivisim. The valid insights of, say, the feminists of the 1970s or the

social critics of the 1980s, are now ancient history. There was, for certain,

real need to become aware of our biases, something often unlikely during

the post Viet Nam era or the era of Reagan. But the pendulum has not only

swung the other direction, in cases it has been separated from reality 
altogether.


This is especially notable in two instances, feminist theory and so-called

"queer theory," and we might mention a third case, black separatism, i.e.

black nationalism.


Who is most to blame?  I don't know but certainly Jacques Derrida and

the other deconstructionists played a leading role; so did at least a few

thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School, although I don't want to

go too far in criticizing the Frankfurt people since  that line of attack

can easily slide over into conspiracy theory.  Regardless, we are now

reaping the whirlwind,


Queer theory effects me the most simply because I have done

as much research into the pathologies of homosexuality as I have

and, accordingly, there has been no escape from the phenomenon.

You know, blaming straight white males for you-name-it,

for example Re: "heterosexist bias" in pointing out that kids

do best, are least likely to suffer psychological maladies,

when they have two opposite sex parents. But queer theory goes

much further in claiming against all objective evidence

that we are 'evolving' toward the rise of a homosexual society

in which all religious values will be replaced by homo-normative

values.


It is the rise of Altman's "homosexualization of America"

thesis of the 1980s, now being mainstreamed and, in the process,

infecting private consciousness on the part of virtually everyone

who, these days, argues on behalf of "gay rights."  They are

oblivious to the source of their ideology and oblivious

to the real world objectives of that ideology. All of this

and they feel so "proud" to be "enlightened."



The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible anyway,

is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s,

Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity

in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide

to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence

to virulent strains of populism.


Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version

of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since.

It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into

full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms.


Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered.

This refers to the scientific method, or as much of that method

as we can make use of in ordinary prose. For me this means

that objectivity, as much  objectivity as possible,

is the necessary foundation of Radical Centrism.



Billy


===










From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:41 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, 
Women's Studies as Virus

Hi Billy,


I wonder what Ernie's take on the video is.

Mostly I thought you’d enjoy a good kindred spirit rant, from the email as much 
as the video.

However, I must also confess to being a “weak” social constructivist. :-)

Obviously I agree that the long term answers of science are determined by the 
evidence. But the questions considered worth asking – and how those answers are 
interpreted – are very deeply socially constructed.

One interesting example I I heard from the humanities is how there was no 
“philosophy of religion“ before the enlightenment, because religion was just 
assumed. Just as there is no “philosophy of secularism“ now.

For all their many flaws, I actually am grateful to the social constructivist 
for reminding us that we never know our own blind spots.

E

--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Google Groups
groups.google.com
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and 
email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/becade87f4704f1f93c3ca0278c4fda6?s=200&ts=1520437167]

Radical Centrism | A Unifying Paradigm of Civil 
Society
radicalcentrism.org
A Unifying Paradigm of Civil Society



---
You received this messa

Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

[Billy Rojas]

Centroids:

Not sure why this was called to my attention. Basically I agree with the video

but also think that its message is so obviously true that discussion isn't 
necessary.

Sort of like a discussion of whether the British were defeated at Yorktown.

There is nothing to argue about.


This said, it is useful to compare creationists with social constructionists.

Both operate on the basis of "post truth" outlooks, or, better, post 
objectivity outlooks.

I have no use either for social constructionist or creationists  ("creationists"

as the world is usually understood, anyway, since it seems to me that creation

is "guided" in some sense and because there also seems to be purpose,

in fact, the teleology of nature is easy enough to argue for because

of its explanatory power, something woefully lacking in any kind

of random chance interpretation of the universe).


Philosophically, how can anyone defend either social constructionism

of naive creationism?


Creationism  has not been the focus of any of our discussions in the past

even though it has come up a scarce few times, in each instance in a

peripheral sense, and we always passed on to something else  -quickly.

Meanwhile I don't recall anyone here making any kind of case for

social constructionism.  It doesn't interest anyone, least of all myself.

It is prima facie false   -and meaningless.


Not that I haven't run across the homosexual version of this dubious theory

in my research into same-sex sexuality; in that field it pops up

on a regular basis, especially on the part of feminist homosexuals

and "hard left" homosexuals  -the kinds of persons who take

John Boswell seriously.  But the arguments are so transparently

full of crap that I seldom spend any time refuting them.

That would be like arguing with a headstong 3 year old,

which would be a total waste of time.


Anyway, not exactly a secret, I am a true blue Saint-Simonian

and the foundation of Saint-Simonian philsophy is

empirical science.  I'd say that we are far past the simplistic

sciences of ca 1800 AD but this still is, nonetheless,

to discuss science, hence evidence, inductive logic,

truth  tests, questioning of one's hypotheses, and so forth.

Or think of it as akin to medicine; there are results

that can be observed and that often can be measured.

The effort almost always is productive and useful.


This does not mean closing the door on genuine mysteries.

What a mistake that would be. But it does say that some mysteries

of the past ceased to be mysterious decades ago, or even centuries ago.



Billy



PS

I wonder what Ernie's take on the video is.



---



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:32 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's 
Studies as Virus

For Billy. :-)

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Stephen D. Williams" mailto:s...@lig.net>>
Date: March 5, 2018 at 10:21:48 PST
To: f...@xent.com
Subject: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies 
as Virus
Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare mailto:f...@xent.com>>

This ties together and coherently refutes a wide range of anti-science ideas 
and people.  Quite the hairy mess.

There are plenty of good terms to learn from this like: science-shy students 
(because of cultural association, etc.). Science wars.  I suppose that's always 
been a thing, in waves. Quite a thing that it's such a thing still, apparently 
stronger than ever with people who are serious about theories.  Even if the 
theories aren't really serious.


The whole video is good, but this is at the paper proposing a strategy for a 
"Women's Studies as Virus" approach:

https://youtu.be/bxdBRKmPhe4?t=24m43s


I'm all for general inclusiveness and equality, but this is deep into territory 
that is begging for good and persistent mocking. It's fine to not be into 
science, but attacking science with pseudoscience in all these ways is 
unacceptable.  Not that there's any real worry about science, but there are 
various negative impacts and the occasional (I hope) dumb decision, in politics 
and elsewhere.  It's going to take more than Niel to constantly refute all of 
this to avoid a nasty infection.


It is amazing that people watch this kind of thing for reasons other than 
comedy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jLs-1GpwQM  Dr Prof Alex Jones Explains 
Advanced Physics


Stephen

--
Stephen D. Williams s...@lig.net 
stephendwilli...@gmail.com LinkedIn: 
http://sdw.st/in
V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres
Personal: http://sdw.st facebook.com/sdwlig 
twitter.com/scienteer

__

[RC] Re: [ RC ] The Rise of Virtual Citizenship - The Atlantic

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

The question should also be:  What should not change?

As with other  breathless forecasts the writer seems to assume

that this innovation, because it currently exists, necessarily

will continue to exist forever into the future.  But will it?


Granted some innovations, like Panamanian or Liberian ship registries

for vessels that never see port in either country,  continue to today.

But other innovations have their season in the sun and then disappear.

A good example is the 2016 Brexit vote that effectively negated

(or will soon do so)  all of the trans-European rights and privileges

that GB had been party to, as well as canceling those rights

within the United Kingdom for non-Britons.


How certain should anyone be that "stateless passports" will endure?

What happens when a nation makes the determination that such passports

are not in its national interest?  People might then have to make a choice,

be stateless  or  continue to be a Russian citizen, or  Israeli, or Singaporean.


Also consider at least some of today's stateless passport holders, people who

want to escape a potential trap (like some Russians who see the writing on the 
wall

because the Putin regime is often corrupt) or are willing to go stateless 
because

it gives them financial advantages and few or no liabilities.  What happens

if a corrupt regime cleans up its act or if various nations start to

penalize stateless passport holders?


It would be worthwhile to find out how various nations

are reacting to virtual citizenship.  Since these kinds of passports

can be taken as a threat to national sovereignty my best guess
is that forces are already under way to curtail this innovation.


Billy






--



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 9:58 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] The Rise of Virtual Citizenship - The Atlantic

Not sure if this is more weird or distrusting...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/virtual-citizenship-for-sale/553733/
[https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/02/Sean_Gallup_Getty_/facebook.jpg?1519146213]

The Rise of Virtual Citizenship - The 
Atlantic
www.theatlantic.com
In Cyprus, Estonia, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere, passports can now 
be bought and sold.



The Rise of Virtual Citizenship
In Cyprus, Estonia, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere, passports can now 
be bought and sold.
James BridleFeb 21, 2018
[The Oval, a commercial property under construction in Limassol, Cyprus]
The Oval, a commercial property under construction in Limassol, Cyprus, in 2017 
Sean Gallup / Getty

“If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. 
You don’t understand what citizenship means,” the British prime minister, 
Theresa May, 
declared
 in October 2016. Not long after, at his first postelection rally, Donald Trump 
asserted, “There is 
no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship. We 
pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag.” And in 
Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has increased his national-conservative 
party’s popularity with statements 
like
 “all the terrorists are basically migrants” and “the best migrant is the 
migrant who does not come.”

Citizenship and its varying legal definition has become one of the key 
battlegrounds of the 21st century, as nations attempt to stake out their power 
in a G-Zero, globalized world, one increasingly defined by transnational, 
borderless trade and liquid, virtual finance. In a climate of pervasive 
nationalism, jingoism, xenophobia, and ever-building resentment toward those 
who move, it’s tempting to think that doing so would become more difficult. But 
alongside the rise of populist, identitarian movements across the globe, 
identity itself is being virtualized, too. It no longer needs to be tied to 
place or nation to function in the global marketplace.

Hannah Arendt 
called
 citizenship “the right to have rights.” Like any other right, it can be 
bestowed and withheld by those in power, but in its newer forms it can also be 
bought, traded, and rewritten. Virtual citizenship is a commodity that can be 
acquired through the

[RC] Re: BLISS Muniversity Re: [ RC ] Re: Values Academies COMMENTS

[Billy Rojas]

on.


Yet maybe the idea would be to build another new city in 20 or 25 years

and the core faculty, etc of the school would then relocate to Colorado

or Michigan or Louisiana or, , Montana.



Billy


---













____
From: Centroids 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 1:39 PM
To: Billy Rojas
Cc: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com; Chris Hahn
Subject: BLISS Muniversity Re: [ RC ] Re: Values Academies

OK, what is your theory?

Are you familiar with Cornel’s hotel school?

https://sha.cornell.edu/

The reason they are so great is because the students are actually running a 
real live hotel. The same way we train doctors and scientists, but hardly 
anyone else.

What if we trained citizens and political leaders the same way, by curating a 
real world experience?

BLISS Stands for Barkworth’s Live-action Incarnational Ssocietal Ssimulator. 
Barksworth is a character I literally dreamed up, where I’ve been imagining how 
he and his ex-supermodel wife go about accidentally reinventing society 
(nothing written down yet, alas).

The Municipal University reimagines college as a city.   There are no 
departments or businesses. Everything is a “service”, with a triple mission of 
serving customers, training students, and improving the state of the art. The 
city itself is run by the government service, which periodically experiments 
with different models of governance.

Values are taught by Dunbars, Households or collections of households up to 
~100 residents that publish and enforce their own particular values, especially 
around Money, Sex, and Power. The Muniversity does not prescribe these, but 
does enforce the core values of:
- respect
- science
- service

Thus, Dunbar’s (or larger Clans that share the same explicit values)
are tracked by the success of their alumni to develop an empirical dataset 
About the impact of different values and practices.

Rather than a rigid distinction between staff, faculty, and students, each 
person can participate in different roles depending on the context. Some start 
out sponsored, like traditional students, but can quickly earn BlissBucks as 
their skills mature (whose exchange rate with US Dollars is managed by the 
Finance Service).

The joke is that the only jobs you cannot train for at BLISS are “Prostitute” 
and “college professor.” Everyone must become expert at something that has 
intrinsic value to society.

There is no formal graduation; You can grow up, get married, and buy a house 
with an off-campus Dunbar while still being a citizen of the muniversity. 
Though most eventually get Commisioned to live out BLISS values elsewhere.

Anyway, this was more intended as a plot device and social commentary that a 
practical proposal. But it was a fun thought experiment. And an interesting 
hypothesis about how to answer your question.

Thoughts?

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:31, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


I will make a wild guess and say that you agree with the sentiment.


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] [ RC ] Re: Values Academies

[Billy Rojas]

Chris:

Your point about military academies is well taken,

What they have in common with religious schools

is a sense of mission. And recognition that to get anywhere

you need discipline although the kinds of discipline

are very different.


Patrick Henry College has a system that uses political organizing

as its modus operandi  -with a foundation of conservative christian values.

Again, I'm not much for that combination of things, but what does impress me

is that the focus is "real world" and measurable results, electing the

"best people" to office. The best people as they saw it meant, for instance,

electing and re-electing George W Bush, not my idea of the best

of anything at all, but with a different definition of "best" it seems

to me that PHC was on to something.


"What would a school like look that was as single-mindedly focused on
Training Culture Warriors?"

Another example of discipline and measurable results are the premier
music schools in the country, like Tanglewood (Summers only) or Julliard.
But to say the least, the focus is narrowly on music, or maybe such things

as orchestra conducting.  Everything else is catch as catch can.  Still,

the results are impressive: Graduates who are world class at playing

a trumpet, or singing arias like angels in heaven.


My interest is in rejuvenating the Liberal Arts, partly by combining

these kinds of classes, etc, with computer technology and software

development. In any case, the "culture" part of Culture Warrior

demands thorough understanding of our culture, and that means

the Liberal Arts more than anything else.


What do you get when someone is utterly clueless about the Liberal Arts,

has almost no knowledge of history, no knowledge of literature,

almost no knowledge of religion (any religion), no knowledge

of psych or social psychology, etc, etc?  Donald Trump.


I remain thankful that we didn't end up with Hillary, but, damn,

how do we get rid of Trump?  He is an embarrassment every time

he opens his mouth. He epitomizes boorishness.


We need a new Watergate, it seems to me.


I will make a wild guess and say that you agree with the sentiment.


OK, what is your theory?



Billy








From: Centroids 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:56 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Chris Hahn; Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: Values Academies

Hi Billy,

On Feb 11, 2018, at 11:45, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


Where is the college that promises you the skills you need to live a happy life?

Does anybody even offer courses on sexual integrity, budgeting, abuse of power, 
or any of the other issues that regularly destroy lives, families, and careers?


Why couldn't a new college / university seek to do exactly that?

Why indeed?

That is actually my point. Nobody actually seems to want to be accountable for 
cultivating true virtue. Hope only promises jobs. Christians focus on 
indoctrinating fundamentalism and excluding a fixed set of sins.  Buddhism 
can’t prevent its own sex scandals.

If you want a partial counter-example, the best I can think of is the military 
academies. They are at least self-conscious about training people in 
discipline, leadership and teamwork — and getting better at it over time.

What would a school like look that was as single-mindedly focused on
Training Culture Warriors? What would it have to subtract, not just add?

You’d need more than relevant classes and high production values. Or even a 
rigid ideology.

I have a theory, but first I want to see if we agree that’s the question worth 
asking.


E

And I'd add still other essentials that are regularly overlooked

in the curricula. For example "Psychology of Personal Relationships,"

"The Objective Study of Religion," and "Human Growth  -what to

expect at age 35, 50, and 70."  Also: "Looking Ahead:  The Job Market

in 2025, 2040, and 2055."

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: Values education [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The Problem of Two Cultures

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Seems to me that Chris is on the money.


Let's look at types of colleges; some really do a good job of teaching values.

I will agree with Chris about Hope College for starters, a school where I once

gave a lecture.


But let me toot my horn for Alice Lloyd College where I began my college 
teaching career.

It wasn't / isn't a religious school but it has always been predicated on 
religious values

and it is a place where all students work 15-20 hours per week as part of their 
"tuition."

Mostly it is intended for Appalachian students with limited means, which is to 
say,

students with little by way of academic background. Yet an above average number

of graduates go on to enroll at UK and other universities.


A very interesting experiment is also under way at Patrick Henry College,

another small religion-based school. Granted, I have great reservation

about the "fundamentalist" views that are prevalent at PHC and even more

reservations with its overt pro-GOP biases, but its whole raison d'etre

is to mobilize students to learn all they can via stress on Biblical values.


Not a college per se is Naropa Institute in Boulder, Colorado, which functions

like a college and which is based on Buddhist values.  Lots of problems

with the school, it has had its own sex scandals, but here is another case

where, when Naropa functions as it was designed, we see positive

results starting with religious premises.


Berea College in Kentucky seems to be another example, also a school

which serves Appalachian students and which stresses values derived

from the Christian heritage of the mountains.


The issue seems to be whether a large university can do likewise.

I simply do not know, but maybe Liberty University provides

an example, or possibly BYU.



But you asked a VERY worthwhile question:


Where is the college that promises you the skills you need to live a happy life?

Does anybody even offer courses on sexual integrity, budgeting, abuse of power,

or any of the other issues that regularly destroy lives, families, and careers?


Why couldn't a new college / university seek to do exactly that?

And I'd add still other essentials that are regularly overlooked

in the curricula. For example "Psychology of Personal Relationships,"

"The Objective Study of Religion," and "Human Growth  -what to

expect at age 35, 50, and 70."  Also: "Looking Ahead:  The Job Market

in 2025, 2040, and 2055."



"Really it seems to be about idolizing 18th century European culture and the 
hobbies of the idle rich."

Huh? That is almost the  exact opposite of what I am talking about. Still, it 
would
make good sense to re-examine education from the past to see if there are 
aspects
of that kind of education we could use today, like the fact that education was 
considered
incomplete in Victorian England unless in included teaching art skills.

Billy



==


From: Chris Hahn 
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 8:25 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: RE: Values education Re: [RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The 
Problem of Two Cultures

Ernie,

Take a look at https://hope.edu/.  I would argue that small liberal arts 
colleges, especially those with a religious compass, do an excellent job of 
teaching culture, values, and skills for a happy life.  On top of that, they 
provide solid pathways in the sciences and humanities.
[https://hope.edu/_resources/img/fb-img-2.png]<https://hope.edu/>

Hope College<https://hope.edu/>
hope.edu



Chris

-Original Message-
From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Centroids
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 11:08 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: Values education Re: [RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The 
Problem of Two Cultures

Hi Billy,

> misunderstand one of the main purposes of education itself, teaching culture 
> to men and women, teaching the value of culture, and teaching the best values 
> we can identify for our lives.

I completely agree. The problem is I have yet to find any educational 
institution that actually is serious about doing that.

Does anybody define precisely which values they are going to teach? Do they 
measure how well they do?

Where is the college that promises you the skills you need to live a happy 
life? Does anybody even offer courses on sexual integrity, budgeting, abuse of 
power, or any of the other issues that regularly destroy lives, families, and 
careers?

Do you know any colleges where you would say, “gosh I wish I had their values?”

Which is why geeks like me think those schools that talk about values are 
really just blowing smoke To avoid actually be accountable for anything

[RC] Re: [ RC ] Strive Talent pitches a new way to hire / Re-thinking higher ed

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

For sure there is a serious problem with financing higher ed;  Strive Talent

is intended to address that issue and just maybe it does.  The problem concerns

the purposes of education.  Strive assumes that its all about good jobs; end of 
story.


Where is education-for-the-whole person in that picture?  And what about such 
questions

as finding purpose in life, cultivating the best values, and human to human 
relationships.

On this last matter, it seems obvious that a major shortfall in education all 
along has been

the need for  humanistic psychology in the mix even if "humanistic" may really 
mean

religious values and insights. Until late in the 19th century it was assumed 
that

vocation as a clergyman was the epitome of achievement and education had

a strong theological component even for those not heading for the pulpit.


We are not going back to that system but it might be wise to take a fresh look 
at it

and what kinds of people came out that kind of educational experience.


But the discussion would be moot if we could find some way to reduce costs

to the level they were at in the past, until some time in the 1970s or 1980s

when costs went into orbit.


How about merit based pay for faculty for starters, and an end to tenure?

Replace it with a contract system, maybe renewals of contracts every 5 years

based on such factors as classroom hours, publications, speaking engagements,

conferences organized, grants written, and the like, not just on publications.

That is, focus on universities as teaching institutions rather than research 
facilities.

Yes, we need good research but we need good teaching even more simply because

of the numbers involved, millions of students and a total population now in the

320 million range and growing.


As well, a good deal of expense is due to high levels of administrative 
employment

with the ratio of administrators to faculty approaching 1:1 in some schools, 
which

is ridiculous; it should be at least 5 teachers per one administrator.


A new university would have the advantage that it could be designed with

cost efficiency as a priority from day #1.  A successful new university

could serve as a model for established schools  - to help those schools

find good ways to get costs under control.


Student debt could be minimized if some sort of work-study program

was part of the package.  My experience until doctoral studies (which is

a separate ballgame) featured holding a job while going to school,

my student debt was very modest and was essentially paid up

a year after graduation.


These comments are just a sketch of what might be done  -and can be done

as soon as most assumptions about higher ed are thrown out the window

so that the problem can be thoroughly re-thought.


Billy














From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:04 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Stressing aptitude over achievement, Strive Talent pitches a new 
way to hire


Stressing aptitude over achievement, Strive Talent pitches a new way to hire
http://social.techcrunch.com/2018/01/24/stressing-aptitude-over-achievement-strive-talent-pitches-a-new-way-to-hire/

[https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/gettyimages-610949074-1.jpg]

Stressing aptitude over achievement, Strive Talent pitches a new way to hire | 
TechCrunch
social.techcrunch.com
A number of startups are rethinking how hiring should work, because while many 
employers require a college degree for a job, the fact is that most of the..


(via Instapaper)


[https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/gettyimages-610949074-1.jpg?w=593&zoom=2]

While unemployment in the U.S. hit a 17-year 
low and 
the stock market keeps humming 
along,
 there’s a lingering sense that all is still not well in U.S. labor markets.

Most jobs require a college degree these days, a proposition that’s becoming 
increasingly unaffordable even if it is attainable. Many students who graduate 
are saddled with so much debt that not even a decent salaried job can guarantee 
payback in a reasonable amount of time.

And the effects of this debt overhang ripple through the entire economy.

Against this backdrop a number of startups are rethinking how hiring should 
work, because while many employers require a college degree for a job, the fact 
is that most of the skills needed to perform those jobs aren’t taught in 
college.

Enter Strive 

Re: [RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The Problem of Two Cultures

[Billy Rojas]

Reply



Chris:

I think you are right, there is an element of elitism. Still, that may be a 
small part

of the equation.  Some people who are not the least elitist are also culture 
mavens.

This was certainly true of many immigrant Jews of the first decades of the

20th century  -and look where it got them, the top-o-the-heap.


There also are those odd birds like Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman who wrote

the best seller, The True Believer.   If you have read this still very relevant 
book

you know that Hoffer was dripping with high culture even though the book

is a tour de force of political thinking and social psych.


These days the best examples of the phenomenon are Asians, especially the 
Japanese

and Chinese.  Symphony orchestras remain viable in the USA and Europe but where

"business is booming" is in Japan and China.  Those countries now produce  some

of the world's best musicians of various kinds.  And some of the world's premier

classical music venues are located in places like Shanghai and Tokyo.


America has seen the arrival of top notch baseball players from Japan, think 
Ichiro,

for many years the star of the Seattle Mariners.  But also think Seiji Ozawa,

for many years the conductor of the Boston symphony.


India has been in the picture too. Think Zubin Mehta, a Parsi, who has conducted

orchestras of status around the world, in the USA, Europe, and lately Israel.


Hell, nothing will replace quality jazz or quality Rock-n-Roll, but classical 
music

can be and often is quality music like nothing  else.  Yes, the classical 
establishment

needs its own house cleaning, the whole atonalist phenomenon of the past half 
century

has been a huge mistake, IMHO, but reforms are possible and the sooner the 
better.


What you said about a range of types of educational experience is very well 
taken.

My years as a draftsman working side by side with architects and engineers

taught me that, not counting experiences working with clients as a graphic 
artist

and as s sign painter. In all such instances I would stress the value of 
something

important to you, psychology.


It all adds up.


Indeed, we each need career skills; they are indispensable. Its just that we

also need cultural knowledge, and need it badly.


Have you seen any of the episodes of "Victoria" on PBS? I was impressed at how

the queen, as part of her education, learned to be a top rate classical pianist.

As did her husband, Prince Albert. And Albert, astute as he was as an art 
aficionado,

was also a man ahead of his times in the technology of his era.  OK, it is 
elitist

to refer to the British aristocracy but, damn, that aristocracy

stood for quality.



Billy







From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 12:50 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The Problem of Two Cultures


Great essay Billy!  We have discussed before the value of a liberal arts 
education.



Perhaps there is an elitist twist here because it is a luxury to be able to 
study the sciences along side classic literature, religion, philosophy, 
psychology, foreign languages, etc.  I had this luxury and deeply appreciate 
it, it allowed me to think from a broad perspective.  In turn, this allowed me 
careers in minerals exploration, spa products, software for the financial 
markets, mediation, and organizational facilitation.  I wouldn’t trade this for 
a quick-track-to-a-well-paying-job approach, but I certainly understand the 
arguments in favor of such a pathway.



Chris



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Billy Rojas
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:24 AM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Cc: Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
Subject: [RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The Problem of Two Cultures



The Problem of Two Cultures



In my youth the "problem of two cultures" was understood as the humanities

vs the sciences.   Today the problem seems to be Silicon Valley vs Main Street,

or Silicon Valley vs College Town.



We finally have entered a long overdue time of techlash. Not that "computer 
thinking"

is about to go the way of blacksmiths or buggy whips,  that isn't remotely in 
the cards,

but pontification by high tech "experts" is increasingly seen for what it 
really is,

the voices of tech nerds promoting their vested interests.



Sometimes the point of view expressed is also anti-intellectual and, in the 
bargain,

obviously ill-informed.



Not that changes in higher education aren't needed; they certainly are.  
Indeed, we need

a revolution in higher ed, starting with kicking out maybe half of tenured

liberal arts professors as dogmatic Leftists who are poisoning the minds

of the young and not

[RC] [ RC ] Aptitude vs. Achievement / The Problem of Two Cultures

[Billy Rojas]

The Problem of Two Cultures


In my youth the "problem of two cultures" was understood as the humanities

vs the sciences.   Today the problem seems to be Silicon Valley vs Main Street,

or Silicon Valley vs College Town.


We finally have entered a long overdue time of techlash. Not that "computer 
thinking"

is about to go the way of blacksmiths or buggy whips,  that isn't remotely in 
the cards,

but pontification by high tech "experts" is increasingly seen for what it 
really is,

the voices of tech nerds promoting their vested interests.


Sometimes the point of view expressed is also anti-intellectual and, in the 
bargain,

obviously ill-informed.


Not that changes in higher education aren't needed; they certainly are.  
Indeed, we need

a revolution in higher ed, starting with kicking out maybe half of tenured

liberal arts professors as dogmatic Leftists who are poisoning the minds

of the young and not-so-young.


However, to conceive of higher education as simply a matter of the demands

of the job market is to misunderstand one of the main purposes of education 
itself,

teaching culture to men and women, teaching the value of culture, and teaching

the best values we can identify for our lives.


A strictly vocational approach, as suggested by Strive Talent, has the huge 
disadvantage

of privileging not the best that American culture can provide but whatever sets 
of ideas

happen to be floating around society, from so-called pop culture, from 
Hollywood,

from TV entertainment,  from spoiled millionaire celebrities,  from  buffoons 
who happen

to be rich,  from comedians, from Right-wing radio, from Leftist Enviro-freaks, 
from

Anarchists or from libertarians, from Wall Street, and you name it.  But seldom 
from

book lovers, from polymaths who are Renaissance men or women, from religious 
leaders,

from smart-as-hell authors, from literary figures, and so forth.


Yes, there are counter trends, C-Span's Book TV is a prime example, but far 
moreso

than not, popular culture rules the roost.  Usually this is a bad thing, not a 
good thing.

I'm not some sort of stuffed shirt, sometimes pop culture can be refreshing,

very creative, provocative in really good ways, but far too often it provides

little more than c-r-a-p for our edification.


Sure, I wanted to become an historian when I was a college student. But I also

wanted to be cultivated, to be at home with people who like to discuss great 
literature,

who enjoy Shakespeare, who have serious knowledge of the Bible and of classics

that have given us our "deep heritage."


I recall an afternoon in a park in Kelso, Washington, back in the 'nineties.

I was listening to a recording of Beethoven's 9th symphony. A little boy

was in the vicinity and he walked over an asked a question:  "How come

you have to listen to that kind of music?"   Apparently he was raised

in a family for  whom Classical music was regarded as unpleasant,

or no better than meaningless.  Unlike my own family or the families

of my best friends, where Classical music was regarded as unarguably

the best music in existence. As a young man my friends included

a would-be concert violinist, a very accomplished organist, a trumpet player,

and so forth, and one friend had a father who was a concert baritone

who,  among other things, sang solos in annual performances

of Handel's Messiah.


I "discovered" philosophy at age 17.  I had friends who made similar

discoveries of their own by age 18 or 19 and one of the joys of college

was to talk with other young people who also saw the value in

critical thinking, in pursuing lines of reasoning, who had great curiosity

about the great thinkers of history, including great thinkers

in the realm of religious faith, viz, Aquinas or Schweitzer or Alan Watts

the Buddhist scholar,  manifestly not such simple minds as Billy Graham

or other pop preachers.


The point of all of this is that there is value in exploring meaning in life,

in learning how to think, learning how to make the best use of culture

in one's life, all of which can and usually does lead to a lifelong desire

to seek education  -in various forms- as long as you live.


None of this says that you should forget about a career; the opposite is true.

But it does say, to paraphrase Socrates, the uncultured life is not worth 
living.

Why? Because "culture," in the sense the word is used here, is all about

being your best, in learning the best things, and -as much as it may be 
possible-

in being your best, starting with what is in your head and heart.


Sorry, but vocation centered education is only half of a real education.



Billy














From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:04 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Stressing aptitude over achievement, Strive Talent pitches a new 
way to hire


Stressing aptitude over achievement, Strive Talent pitch

Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Entirely fair.  But what I was trying to say is that, by way of metaphor,

I imagine myself as someone along the lines of  an intellectual Indiana Jones

where the adventures are not death defying scrapes with Nazis or angry Arabs,

but moistly cognitive jousting among brainy people; only rarely are there

nasty Nazis per se, or bloodthirsty Arabs.


My impression of you is along the lines of a very peaceful pastor who makes

it a point of honor to be a mediator whenever possible, a peace maker,

an all around good guy.  Which is hardly a bad thing to be.  It is a very good

thing to be.


Another way to say the same thing, I like to think of myself as following in

Mark Twain's footsteps in his autobiographical book, Roughing It, about

his years as a newsman on the actual Western frontier, forever in trouble

with someone or another, sometimes deserved,  and forever finding

at least a modest adventure to take comfort in. Not in the least genteel

even if, in later years, Twain was far more genteel than not.


The self image is semi-rural and what may be called "rough and ready."

Now and then I would fit in with a honkey-tonk crowd  Christian, yes,

but my Bible carried in my back pocket, the pages worn and scuffed up.


You, as I conceive things anyway, are far more urban and urbane.


My self image is, of course, flattering to my ego and is partly wishful 
thinking.

But there is truth to it. My image of you is surely likewise partly

off base, but to tell you what it consists of   -for your edification.

You could walk into the LA Hilton and look and feel the part.

They would kick me out as soon as I walked in the front door.



Billy





From: Centroids 
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:25 PM
To: Billy Rojas
Cc: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

Hi Billy,

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2018, at 23:12, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


For me its all about launching a new crusade, about fighting spirit, backbone, 
and willingness to endure the inevitable reaction, even if this cannot be easy 
in any sense of the term

Not your style at all.  But that's OK, what is crucial is standing up against 
evil

whatever forms it takes.

Speaking of “mischaracterizations”

That actually is my style. Please don’t denigrate my battles or my tactics 
until you’ve actually asked me about them. Rather than implicitly assuming you 
know everything there is to know about me.

Just because I don’t fight your preferred battles with your preferred tactics 
doesn’t mean we’re not fighting the same war.

Fair enough?

Ernie

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:

Although I think I understand your sentiments, Re: Satan,

be advised that you have no idea how real Satan is in my world,

painfully real, literally real, beyond the least doubt.   For me every day

is part of a war against Satan.


Regardless, you are correct that we all are sinners, we all share in evil

to some extent, at times to great extent.  No question about that, either.

What I object to is how Evangelicals  -not only charismatics-  sometimes

tie themselves into knots of guilt feelings, in the process failing

to confront very real evil in the world because they are so busy scourging

themselves as if they were flagellants. Osteen is a master at this,

but there are plenty of others who do likewise. And we know

how "effective" Osteen is in taking a stand against social evils,

LOL, ROTFUL, etc, I mean, he is  a bad joke.


But I'm not coming from Charismatic Christianity into the fray.

My cues almost all derive from undiluted Martin Luther,

his own words (in English translation), filled with candid remarks,

occasional vulgarities, strategic cussing, and earthy sentiments.

Christianity for truck drivers and construction workers, as it were.

I thrive on Martin Luther.


For me its all about launching a new crusade, about fighting spirit,

backbone, and willingness to endure the inevitable reaction

even if this cannot be easy in any sense of the term.


Not your style at all.  But that's OK, what is crucial is standing up against 
evil

whatever forms it takes.



Billy



--



From: Centroids 
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:06 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

Hi Billy,



I mean, Ernie,  the text could not possibly be more clear.

Oh, I fully believe in evil. As a charismatic I probably believe in Satan more 
than you do. :-)

But I also believe that the Bible teaches *we* are evil. And that to defeat the 
Hitlers and Putin’s and Trumps of the world we need to understand how we are 
like them.

I don’t see how the New Testament could be any clearer on this point...

E





Billy

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

[Billy Rojas]

From: Billy Rojas
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 1:42 AM
To: Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality


Ernie:
Fair question; I will give it a try.


But it must be said that your 3 -part 'definition' of evil mystifies me.

It is an abstraction that, as I see it, misses the character of actual evil.


I start with the treatment of evil in the Bible.  It is concrete, it is vivid,

it cites specifics, it usually makes consequences clear, and it manifestly

is not abstract.  In other words.


Evil is destructive to human well being, it has sick motivation, that is,

you can think of evil as a terrible sickness. Evil destroys lives even if

this may not happen all at once. Evil can also be thought of as a poison,

as intention to unfairly harm others, as self centered, as unself-critical,

as indifferent to the well being of others.


Personification of evil in the form of the Devil is very useful. Evil is NOT

a matter of some sort of set of generalizations, it is specific to character,

the kind of character manifest in the 'person' of Satan.  In contemporary

or post modern terms,  evil was embodied in Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,

Al Capone, Richard Speck the mass murderer, more recently in Charles Manson,

in a number of mass murderers,  and including spiritually ugly homosexuals

like Andrea Dworkin and Harry Hay.


Evil is anti-nature, anti love, anti self-actualization. Hence, next to murder 
itself,

homosexuality is the worst evil imaginable.


There is no excuse for evil. Evil must be expunged from society, never 
accommodated

as it now is, in Hollywood films (where evil often is glorified), in 
libertarian politics

(even though not everything about libertarianism is evil and some parts of

libertarian philosophy are obviously "good"), in various practices of

Wall Street, with the movie of that title exemplifying a number of forms

of evil quite graphically, as was also true of Fifty Shades of Gray.



Evil can best be thought of in terms of disease, filth, psychological 
contortion,

dysfunctional actions, unjustifiable injury, callousness, greed, gluttony,

sloth, etc, the seven deadly sins.   Evil also denies the value of freedom

although about "freedom" we need to be careful inasmuch as freedom

is a wonderful proximate ideal but may be a terrible absolute ideal.


Above all we need to be very clear about what evil actually is and

not hide it beneath a welter of clinical language that may make evil seem to be

some sort of side issue not really deserving serious attention.


How should we talk about evil?  I think that the way the Apostle Paul

talked about the evil of sodomy in Romans 1: 24-32 is the very best model

to follow.  It is very clear that evil is something we must hate with

our entire being, hate it unqualifiedly, despise it, and seek its destruction.



But, of course, Jesus also hated evil.   He HATED evil, he had no use at all

for any kind of temporalizing about evil. His purpose was to destroy evil.

Matthew 11: 20-24 should make this abundantly clear. In the end, anything

like Sodom and Gomorrah must be utterly annihilated.


I mean, Ernie,  the text could not possibly be more clear.



Billy








From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Dr. Ernie 
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:55 PM
To: Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
Subject: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality


Hi Billy,

So the question for everyone is simple:   Where, in your calculus, does evil 
fit in?
In some cases I don't see any allowance at all for the reality of evil
and how to deal with it.

That's somewhat of a large question.  Do you mean evil actions, the causes of 
evil, the meaning of evil?

I can start with my Radical Centrist manifesto, where I define 2 1/2 sins:

* The Simple, who refuse to face the consequences of action
* The Wicked, who "shrink" community, by refusing to honor those they benefit 
from
* The Fools, who denies Reality in order to maintain their isolation and 
self-image

That is far from a comprehensive analysis of evil, but I still find it a useful 
starting point.

Do you want to share your definition, so we have something concrete to discuss?

-- Erne P.



>From Billy

Reflections on Reality


It must be nice to live in a world where evil never needs to be confronted and 
defeated.

Alas, that is not the world I live in.


To be sure, like Chris, I moved to a location where, in fact, confronting evil

is not an obvious everyday need.  Eugene is, in many ways, an idyllic 
university town.

Crime here is minimal;  murders are rare and those that get reported usually

are committed by outcasts  -lower class whites who happen to be alcoholics

or druggies, blacks who somehow gravitated to this nec

Re: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality

[Billy Rojas]

Ernie:
Fair question; I will give it a try.


But it must be said that your 3 -part 'definition' of evil mystifies me.

It is an abstraction that, as I see it, misses the character of actual evil.


I start with the treatment of evil in the Bible.  It is concrete, it is vivid,

it cites specifics, it usually makes consequences clear, and it manifestly

is not abstract.  In other words.


Evil is destructive to human well being, it has sick motivation, that is,

you can think of evil as a terrible sickness. Evil destroys lives even if

this may not happen all at once. Evil can also be thought of as a poison,

as intention to unfairly harm others, as self centered, as unself-critical,

as indifferent to the well being of others.


Personification of evil in the form of the Devil is very useful. Evil is NOT

a matter of some sort of set of generalizations, it is specific to character,

the kind of character manifest in the 'person' of Satan.  In contemporary

or post modern terms,  evil was embodied in Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,

Al Capone, Richard Speck the mass murderer, more recently in Charles Manson,

in a number of mass murderers,  and including spiritually ugly homosexuals

like Andrea Dworkin and Harry Hay.


Evil is anti-nature, anti love, anti self-actualization. Hence, next to murder 
itself,

homosexuality is the worst evil imaginable.


There is no excuse for evil. Evil must be expunged from society, never 
accommodated

as it now is, in Hollywood films (where evil often is glorified), in 
libertarian politics

(even though not everything about libertarianism is evil and some parts of

libertarian philosophy are obviously "good"), in various practices of

Wall Street, with the movie of that title exemplifying a number of forms

of evil quite graphically, as was also true of Fifty Shades of Gray.



Evil can best be thought of in terms of disease, filth, psychological 
contortion,

dysfunctional actions, unjustifiable injury, callousness, greed, gluttony,

sloth, etc, the seven deadly sins.   Evil also denies the value of freedom

although about "freedom" we need to be careful inasmuch as freedom

is a wonderful proximate ideal but may be a terrible absolute ideal.


Above all we need to be very clear about what evil actually is and

not hide it beneath a welter of clinical language that may make evil seem to be

some sort of side issue not really deserving serious attention.


How should we talk about evil?  I think that the way the Apostle Paul

talked about the evil of sodomy in Romans 1: 24-32 is the very best model

to follow.  It is very clear that evil is something we must hate with

our entire being, hate it unqualifiedly, despise it, and seek its destruction.



But, of course, Jesus also hated evil.   He HATED evil, he had no use at all

for any kind of temporalizing about evil. His purpose was to destroy evil.

Matthew 11: 20-24 should make this abundantly clear. In the end, anything

like Sodom and Gomorrah must be utterly annihilated.


I mean, Ernie,  the text could not possibly be more clear.



Billy








From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Dr. Ernie 
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:55 PM
To: Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
Subject: [RC] Defining Evil Re: Reflections on Reality


Hi Billy,

So the question for everyone is simple:   Where, in your calculus, does evil 
fit in?
In some cases I don't see any allowance at all for the reality of evil
and how to deal with it.

That's somewhat of a large question.  Do you mean evil actions, the causes of 
evil, the meaning of evil?

I can start with my Radical Centrist manifesto, where I define 2 1/2 sins:

* The Simple, who refuse to face the consequences of action
* The Wicked, who "shrink" community, by refusing to honor those they benefit 
from
* The Fools, who denies Reality in order to maintain their isolation and 
self-image

That is far from a comprehensive analysis of evil, but I still find it a useful 
starting point.

Do you want to share your definition, so we have something concrete to discuss?

-- Erne P.



>From Billy

Reflections on Reality


It must be nice to live in a world where evil never needs to be confronted and 
defeated.

Alas, that is not the world I live in.


To be sure, like Chris, I moved to a location where, in fact, confronting evil

is not an obvious everyday need.  Eugene is, in many ways, an idyllic 
university town.

Crime here is minimal;  murders are rare and those that get reported usually

are committed by outcasts  -lower class whites who happen to be alcoholics

or druggies, blacks who somehow gravitated to this neck of the woods and

who have never left behind their inner city values, etc.


The last thing I need is worry about are street hoodlums or ethnic gangs or 
loan sharks

who prey on unfortunates and cause trouble generally. That is, the kind of stuff

which large cities are often identified with

Re: [RC] Amazon Health >>> Reflactions on Reality

[Billy Rojas]

Reflections on Reality


It must be nice to live in a world where evil never needs to be confronted and 
defeated.

Alas, that is not the world I live in.


To be sure, like Chris, I moved to a location where, in fact, confronting evil

is not an obvious everyday need.  Eugene is, in many ways, an idyllic 
university town.

Crime here is minimal;  murders are rare and those that get reported usually

are committed by outcasts  -lower class whites who happen to be alcoholics

or druggies, blacks who somehow gravitated to this neck of the woods and

who have never left behind their inner city values, etc.


The last thing I need is worry about are street hoodlums or ethnic gangs or 
loan sharks

who prey on unfortunates and cause trouble generally. That is, the kind of stuff

which large cities are often identified with hardly exist hereabouts.

Whole categories of evil simply do not need to be confronted in Eugene.

For all practical purposes such evil does not exist in this middle class 
'utopia.'


This seems to be true in parts of California also, like most of Silicon Valley.

This probably is the case, as well, in the nicer parts of Cleveland.  But allow 
me

to play "devil's advocate."


A world with no evil in it is pure illusion; it simply cannot exist. Why?

Because Satan exists, because we are unable to escape the reach of sin,

because we are imperfect, because we are a suit of clothes removed from

the law of the jungle and human immorality.  This is too cynical, of course,

but to set the stage, to paint a mood, to make a point.


To me we are always like Syria in 2010, the year before the "Arab Spring"

and the start of the civil war that has torn that country apart and resulted in

countless dispossessed people, hundred of thousands killed,  widespread 
lawlessness,

rival armies fighting it out. Substitute the Balkans in the 1990s, parts of 
India today,

East Africa a decade ago, or turf wars in contemporary LA or Chicago.


Which is a long way to say that I greatly admire something of the work

everyone in the group is doing. For example, in a parallel world I'd drive

to Montana and look up Chris; it is obvious that he is on to something

and, for one, I'd love to learn what he is learning from a Navy Seal.

Yet I have known a couple of Army "Pathfinders" and they aren't

too different than Seals and this tells me that what Chris has

already found is an intersection of his world with the world

of someone who knows evil up close and personal.



So the question for everyone is simple:   Where, in your calculus, does evil 
fit in?

In some cases I don't see any allowance at all for the reality of evil

and how to deal with it.


And what IS evil?  For sure it is far more than street gangs or violent 
political dictators

or even ideologies like Nazism or various forms of Communism.


For the life of me I am at a loss about how anyone here defines evil.


One thing, a good definition really would require a serious essay

at least 10 pages long.  At a minimum if would need to be 100 items long.


To use just one example, sadism is an evil. Yet libertarians insist that it is 
not

as long as the participants agree to  to torture and humiliate each other 
willingly.

To me that kind of outlook, finding justifications for evil, is another evil.

But so is not doing anything that matters when confronted with evil

an evil itself.


You can see how knotted up the problem of evil actually is. It is also 
pervasive,

it is everywhere, even in Eugene or Montana. Yet who has any kind of

thorough-going philosophy of identifying and dealing with evil?


During bad days,  all too many days lately given my medical woes,

I think that no-one here has any concept of evil at all. As if RC

was a philosophy conceived by Frank Baum while he was

creating the story of Dorothy and the land of Oz.


The point about Syria is that one day a family was concerned about

their kids doing well in school, the next day the school was blown

to bits in an artillery barrage. All of a sudden the family's priorities

were 'revolutionized.'


This applies just as well to someone living on a ranch in cowboy country

or a senior citizen who loves to grumble about philosophical issues

or a younger man doing his best to climb the ladder of success.


a parable.



from

Rev. Billy




























From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Chris Hahn 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:49 PM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RC] Amazon Health

I heard a good article on this today.  I am with you, I wouldn’t bet against 
those guys.

-Original Message-
From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Centroids
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Centroids Discussions 
Subject: [RC] Amazon Health

Dang. I’m not one to bet against both Bezos and Buffet.

Politics was disrupted by the Intern