<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
DaveW -<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
As a card carrying Hermeneutic </pre>
</blockquote>
"Hermeneutics<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;"> is the art of understanding and of
making oneself understood" - Wikipedia<br>
</span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.</pre>
</blockquote>
Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally. Rhetorical
presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.
And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).</pre>
</blockquote>
This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and
wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot
"isms" that they be thus? Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or
rhetorical?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.</pre>
</blockquote>
Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?
Or are you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional
oversight of the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican
one as well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing
anything to get one's way, denying any wrong-doing categorically,
and then squealing "unfair!" anytime someone lands even a
half-good punch on them. Decades ago, when my sympathies were
more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was
because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful
and in some sense generous. I haven't seen that from the Right
in a very long time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.
Politicians are still politicians but *some* of them truly seem
motivated to be *Statesmen*, even if the game as it has (d)evolved
makes that hugely difficult.</p>
<p>It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the
left of being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a
bully... to cry foul when confronted effectively.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">davew
[Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you
believe the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might
react overtly? I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem
to strictly believe that Trump has made America "Great Again" or
that keeping him in office will yield a continued or increased
"Greatness", I suspect that your own version of what I call in
myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing around
roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to
burn it down. I shared some of the reactionary spirit that
(nearly) drove Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact
drive Donald to taking the Gerrymandered Electoral College
majority, but whatever good that disruption brought is well over
IMO... it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" and
return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.</p>
<p>Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to
rekindle the flames if they start to die down?<br>
</p>
<p>- SteveS</p>
<p>PS. I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support)
MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's
dilemma. It is perhaps too simplified for application in the
context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may
be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector
strategy that the Right seems to prefer.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>