Hey all, again

Yes, I'm a hypocrite, but in my defense I think one of my original statements about fostering debate because of the removal of the original post has been proved. And I'll say this, the debate has been lively and very interesting. Possibly much more than would have been debated had the original post been left untouched. I'm not sure if this is a good, or bad thing, although it is very interesting to hear many different viewpoints on this subject of what i would call 'freedom'.

Now, the 2nd amendment doesn't mean much to me as I'm European, not American. I live in a country where guns are not readily availble (unless you're part of the criminal fraternity) and nobody has a right to bear ARMS. I can't really comment on the right to bear a weapon as a civil right, as this is Anathamea to mine and many other European people's minds and has been for a long time now. The thought of owning a gun makes me feel ill (of course as a child I had toy guns, lots of them in fact, and I did play war) but from my perspective it boggles my mind that a whole country could write in an amendment to support the owning of a weapon specifically designed to do nothing but kill (You could use it to stir soup, or knock in a nail I suppose). Is this a freedom? It doesn't sound like one to me, or many Europeans. And yes, I've heard the argument about 'its' not guns that kill people, it's people' and it doesn't fly for me, and many others. You can't kill a person with a knife from half a mile away, but you can with a gun--rifle (the sniper terror in your country of late, for instance). And what kind of deer are these NRA people hunting with a Mach10 or an Uzi? For me the sooner we destroy all weapons, then the better the world will be. I remember reading Asimov a long time ago, and he said the sooner we stop spending money on wars, and trying to defend ourselves, a\nd putting that money into education, cleaning up the world and the space race, the sooner the human race will grow up and conquer the stars (paraphrasing). I believe this, not just on a personal level, but on a humanitarian level. Apart from the fact that any kind of violent death is disturbing, no matter how it is performed. I'd like less of it, please, and less guns too.

As to Chuck Heston, what I should have said, and clarified, is that Chuck turned from a 'left wing' viewpoint (I think he supported Democrat, but you'll clear me up on this) to a Right wing (Republican view), and this is what shocked me. It would be like one of my personal hero's, the MP Tony Benn (Labour, old Labour not watered down New Labour), suddenly becoming a Tory (Conservative). I hope that has clarified my point, and that I did not even think about the 2nd amendment while writing about Chuck.

As to your other points, about there being recognised literary classics, books that have proven themselves over time, again I must disagree, and I'll back this one up personally. In my local library they have a 'classics' section, in here you'll find Dickens, Moliere, J.F Cooper, Dostoyevksy and pretty much what you'd expect from a small town library and it's classics section. Now, while in school we had reading lists, again 'classics' these books that have stood the test of time. And I read a lot of the books on that list, and do you know what happened? I thought, and still think, a lot of them stink and are poorly written. I don't like Dickens or the depressing worlds of Dostoyevsky. I think Virginia Woolf is a whiner, same with Sylvia Plath. Shakespeare bores me, and continues to bore me every time I've happened upon his work (or hers, or theirs depending on your opinion). What was the thread here I asked myself? That all these books designated as 'great works' of literature, that had stood the test of time, meant absolutely nothing to me. they weren't great to me, and probably never would be. What was wrong, I asked myself? Simple, these were other people's opinions of what was good. At that moment in time I decided not to listen to any consensus opinion, whether published in literary journals or otherwise. I do not read reviews, or criticism, or literary analysts. I make up my own mind. For me the three greatest books of all time don't even come near a 'classics' section of my library (neither does Bradbury, by the by, but strangely enough, Aldous Huxley does. Possibly some kind of English bias). Here's my list of the 3 greatest books of all time --

1--The Big Kiss off of 1944 by Andrew Bergman (and the follow up, Hollywood and Levine)
2--One Lonely Night - Richard Laymon
3--Speedy -- by Max Brand (aka Frederick Faust)

Why are these classics? Simple. They were all given to me by my family and they have meaning beyond the meaning of any group or time frame can give them. I've had more enjoyment out of that one book, Speedy by Max Brand, than I have from all the works of Hawthorne, Cooper, Shakespeare, London, Nabokov and the hundreds of other 'classic' authors I've ever read.

Oh, I know you'll say, but Speedy means nothing, it doesn't touch on the 'human condition' and hasn't stood the test of time, for wasn't Max Brand a pulp writer? Didn't he write over 200 books in his lifetime, and over 2,000 short stories? How can he be important, or meaningful to anyone. Well, I suggest you read any of the 200 books that Max Brand wrote, and he does in 150 pages what none of those classic authors could manage throughout their lives. To stir something in me on a personal level, much as Bradbury does.

For me the word 'classic' or 'timeless' sets of the alarm bells in my head. Same as the word 'right wing' 'conservative' and 'war'. I don't believe in classics, and I never will, no matter what people say. I will never abandon my right (there's no amendment for this, maybe their should be one) to ignore people's advice on the goodness of fiction. Oh, and by the way, if I ever picked up a work of 'fiction' to be educated, enlightened, challenged, or shocked, I know I'd be reading for the wrong reasons. If it doesn't 'buzz' me then it'll never mean anything to me, no matter what other people say.

Is this topic closed now? Because I think the Bradburysmells thing has ended.

later
Frankanger

[This message has been edited by frankanger (edited 01-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by frankanger (edited 01-27-2003).]

>>> it boggles my mind that a whole country could write in an amendment to support the owning of a weapon specifically designed to do nothing but kill

As the great American philosopher Homer J. Simposon pointed out, if we didn't have the 2nd amendment the king of England could come over here and get in our face.

[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 01-27-2003).]

That war was a long time ago, friend. And do the Iraqui's have a 2nd amendment, or the people of Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Cuba, and the countless other countries the American military/intelligence establishment haven threatned and continue to threaten with their unique form of cultural imperialism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 2nd amendment didn't apply to the 'african slaves' even after granted their freedom, or the native american's who were culturally overrun and slaughtered in the 'pioneer' days of your country? Wasn't it just for the 'white' man for many many years. Now that's what I call a civil liberty. And I don't support imperialism of any kind, whether that comes from a monarchy (which I despise in my own country) culture, economic ideology, or religion. Maybe we should have one of those 2nd amendments over here, and the next time an American corporation threatnes my culture by building another palace of bland commercialism such as a McDonalds or KFC, I can go up there and defend my culture by shooting the place up?

Guns don't kill people. The bullets do.

And yes, we are very Kind in England, on the whole.



Frankanger

[This message has been edited by frankanger (edited 01-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by frankanger (edited 01-27-2003).]

ouch! You got me before I could fix my typo!

Yes that war was long ago, as many who oppose the 2nd amendment point out. But I think, at least in the context of a country declaring its independence and having a revolutionary war, and expanding out into the wilderness, it's understandable how the amendment got there in the first place.

As far as its relevance today...that's a whole other message board!

Hey hey

That's the fun of a message board, all the typos. That and the edit function.

LOL


Frankanger

Hey, Frank, if England passed an amendment that the House of Windsor had to run for re-election every four years, would they win?

For those wishing further discussion on other authors: go to www.deja.com
Run a search on your author's name and see in what forums that author was discussed, how recently, and what was said. Or just go to rec.arts.books and type in what you want about any author. Oh, and I probably shouldn't tell you this, but those forums are totally unmoderated. People post commercials and much worse things all the time, but mostly it's very good literary discussion.

Hey, thanks Dandelion

Oh, and if there was an amendment and the House of Windsor had to be elected, you'd see the royal family out on their ear quicker than you could blink. The town I live in, in the North West of England, is predominantly a working class, and there is absolutley no love for the Royal Family (a sentiment that is quite strong in the rest of the country). I'd love to see the monarchy abolished, and a republic or even a true democracy put in the place of our clanking parliamentary system.

Thanks for the info on the other board. I'll take myself over for a visit as soon as I can.

peace
Frankanger.

Whenever someone says their mind is made up and will never be changed -- no matter what the argument -- I get a bit nervous.

I'm currently teaching a philosophy class and one of the points these philosophers drum home (from Socrates to Bertrand Russell) is the idea that close-mindedness is one of the most dangerous states of mind in the human family.

While I don't always agree with alternate positions, to refuse to be open to the possibility of intellectual change seems to cut off all opportunity of learning and personal growth.

As Socrates said, his wisdom is to know that he doesn't know everything. This intellectual/moral state is what makes growth and learning possible.

Hey, y'all,

Not to flog a topic to death but the purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn't to keep down the threat of a foreign enemy. Rather, it's purpose was to allow the people to arm themselves against their own government. A 2nd amendment in Iraq? You can be darn sure those people there wouldn't mind having one if it meant giving them a way to toss out Saddam. (Oh, I forgot, he was unanimously elected. )

Dandelion,

Thanks for the link. Tried it out, plugged in Anne Tyler, very disappointing. Think I'll stick to this forum.

(Sorry I couldn't find a way to tie Bradbury to this post. I'll try harder next time.)

Pete

I second Pete's comments on the second. I remember Clinton making a big deal that he protects the 2nd amendment to assure that hunters have their rights, but the second amendment was not about hunting. It was a counter-balance to the unchecked power of government.

I think the effort to destroy all guns before we eradicate evil in the hearts of man is misguided and naive. In Dallas, we just had a deal where two intruders broke into a house in the middle of the night and both were shot by the homeowner. During the LA riots, the only business not looted and destroyed were the ones where the Korean owners sat on their roofs with rifles. Interestingly, the looters didn't torch, rob or vandalize those businesses.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-27-2003).]

And if someone has no definite opinion, they can be accused of moral relitivism. Swings and roundabouts. My opinions have formed over years of reading, living, thinking. AT this point in my life my opinions are set, yes, and I can't see a point in the future where they will change. Although as your philosopher's like to say 'never say never' or was that James Bond, I forget? The problem with philosophy, along with all the studies concering Sociology, Psychology and Literature is that they shift 'too often'. Unlike the hard sciences they are for the majority unprovable, but very quotable. That to me is the problem with the study of Philosophy and the rest. With hard science if someone proves the existence of Gravity, it's proven. If someone wants to refute that, then they've got a lot of hard work to make their counter-argument conclusively. That's why I have a problem when people quote Philoshophy as an answer. I'd rather it be 'your' perception than that of Homer, of Plato or anybody. I want to know what you as an individual think, not a borrowed explanation of the world and thought by a man (or woman, although I can't think of many) long dead. Opinions from Philosophers can be thought-provoking, confrontational, illuminating, but do you know what, I can gain exactly the same from most of the modern entertainment I love and most of the modern trials and tribulations of a life lived. I've read Plato and Socrates, Freud, Marx, Engels and a lot of others and in many ways they touch no part of my world. They seem to me too 'time sensitive' to give me much more than what I have already gleemed from condensed versions of their opinions (i stress opinion here). It is one of the reasons I avoid philosophy as much as I can at this moment in time. Opinions on the state of man and his true heart I gain from my grandfather all the time, same with the rest of my family, my friends, and the modern culture I am entertained by on a regular basis. Sure, it's all very interesting, but really I'd like to make up my own opinion on the state of man rather than compare and relate to men who were born in a world that bares no significant relation to mine. As you have probably guessed I don't believe in Universal Truths (especially in relation to man), only Personal Imperical Truths (can't remember who coined that phrase, or when, and do you know what? I don't care to remember, because it's not important to me)

later
Frankanger

Interesting post. You begin with the insinuation that my "reliance" on philosophy leads to moral relativism (because there are so many opinions), and then you close by saying that you don't believe in Universal Truths. This claim, it seems to me, leads, by definition, to moral relativism.

When I study various philosophers, this does not necessarily lead to moral relativism, as I view them from within my own experience and perspective. In many cases, when I see a better idea, I do enlarge my perspective (or let go of bad beliefs) in order to accommodate a better interpretation of the world. Often I just disagree with them. I don't see this as moral relativism.

Philosophy and the hard sciences deal with different kinds of knowledge claims. The hard sciences broke off of philosophy (the original source of all the sciences, by the way) when they began to solve and address specific -- as opposed to -- universal problems. Philosophy deals with universal issues that come out of the human experience. The obvious questions are things like, "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "What is the nature of reality?" "What is the right/best way to act?" "How do I know what is true?" These are not really subject to easy answers that are empirically verifiable in a "scientific" process. But then, they are not really meant to be. They are springboards by which we try to understand the meaning of our lives better.

I've never quoted philosophy "as an answer". I use philosophy to probe my own beliefs and feelings. I often quote philosophers as I have no problem admitting that a lot of smart people have explicated my beliefs and feelings better than I have. When I post, I post what I as an individual think. It is usually after reflection and it is definitely influenced by the reading I've done in philosphy and literature (and scripture), and it is influenced by dialog I've had with others and by my own experiences. I've never abdicated my right or responsibility to form my own opinions. To imply that reading philosophy "forms" my opinions for me and that I somehow do not own those opinions reflects a different interaction with philosophy than I have had.

I find it difficult to relate to the idea that you can immerse yourself in these great minds and, "...they touch no part of your world." I can't deny your claim; but I don't get it.

As far as the original intent of the framers of the bill of rights goes...

I think the idea of allowing people to be armed against their own government is an important one, and I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems that the phrase "An armed militia being necessary..." doesn't quite jive with that theory.


[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 01-27-2003).]

It depends on who you read and how it gets interpreted. The militia was necessary for two reasons: (1) There was no standing army, (2) The colonialists were afraid of a standing army because it meant the guns and power were owned and controlled by the government. With militias, citizens own and maintain the guns. The clause in reference to a militia is often construed to mean that the founding fathers never meant that guns should be in private hands. My interpretation is that the militia was preferred precisely because it was not a standing army.

Well, I'm sorry that you thought I was insuiating a moral relativism on your part. I was in fact talking about myself, and how if I didn't have 'definitive opinions' I could be accused of moral relativism. Sometimes, I should word my thoughts more clearly, but hey, most of the time I don't.

Yes! Yes and Yes again! My experience with philosophy is a lot different than yours, worlds apart I would say. I have never 'immersed' myself as you put it, but I have read these philosophers in my time. This to me is the important point, I am not student of Philosophy, and probably never will be. It's fiction all the way for me baby! My reaction is honest in so much as that this is what happened to me in relation to philosophy. I'm not one to jump on another man's bonfire, or woman's for that matter, so I hope you didn't take this as an affront to your own interest. It was not. I was merely stating my relation to the world of philosophy and how it has little relevance in my life. Say for instance you picked up a book, any book, let's make it, I don't know -- Story by Robert Mckee (a man in my opinion who has done the best job of making fiction into dry maths) and you had no particular interest in the book. Nothing had driven you towards it, no longing or great interest in the topic -- maybe it was on a list of 'required reading' another horrible idea. Could you relate to this book? Maybe you could, I don't know, because I don't know you. Maybe you have the type of mind that is honestly intrigued by theories and opinions and that revels in such analysis. Again, I don't know. But me, personally, a book without a driving interest is like reading C++ computer code. I know what the words are, but they make little sense to me. This is what I was trying to get at.

Again, the comment I made about people quoting was not specifically directed at you, or your interest in philosophy. It was a lead on from a rush of thought that begged to be let out of my head and onto the board. You're the one who lit the spark that fired my bonfire with a quote about closed-mindedness. I've never considered myself a close-minded person, and if you knew me, then you'd see I run with a million different ideas every day. It's one of the reasons I love Ray's work so much, the passion, the excitement, the chasing after many different ideas and loves. But does this stop me from having definitive views? No, it does not. I have them, I defend them when I feel they are under attack. I will change them if something (and argument, in my case will never change my mind) pushes me away.

I'll give you an example. I was brought up Catholic, and for a long time I believed in Christ and the church (I was an altar boy). But then came the time for my Confirmation and I heard a sermon by my preiest castigating people with words of scripture (gay men, specifically, and as my neighbhour of that time was a wonderful sweet man with a generous nature and was also gay, I could not stand this). So I changed my mind. I stopped believing in a God that could put ministers of his message on the EArth with such hateful hearts. I could not believe a God would put hateful words down onto paper through disciples. Jesus became nothing but a story to me, a good one, I'll admit, but not my saviour, not my redemption. I did not get confirmed, and from that day on I stopped having faith in a Christian version of God. Closed minded? It could be seen as this from an outside viewpoint. But from that moment on I became more interested in religion, in how it grew, what it truly meant to many different people around the world. I looked at Judaism, Islam, Bhuddishm (so many and so many beautiful differences from Tao to Zen) Shamanism, the belief of the Aboriginal's in the Dreamtime, on and on it went. I can't quote you any lines of scripture from the bible to zen poetry, I can't quote much because it never sticks. But I came away from my 'definitive viewpoint' with much more than if I had become confirmed in the Catholic faith.

Again, if you thought I was targetting, or implying the use of quotations in relation to you specifically, then I apologise. I gave my opinion of a bugbear of mine in relation to Philosophy in a general sense.

As to your claim that -- (don't believe in Universal Truths) it seems to me, leads, by definition, to moral relativism.

I have to disagree. A universal truth, to me, is something that is unarguable, something set in stone (from my recollection, ten years previous, Socratic logic always struck me as this. A kind of maths where A+B always equalled C. I'm probably wrong, but my perception of it is thus). My stance is that I believe only in 'personal imperical truths'. There is no moral relativism in this. I believe what I believe because I have witnessed it with my own eyes and heart. Moral relativism to me is akin to sitting on fences and not taking a side. As you can see, I do take a side, but sometimes taking a side is more complicated than mere words can outline. If I'd not taken my side against God and the Catholic religion, then I'd be no wiser about the rest of the worlds religions at this point.

I take all your points on using philosophy as a springboard and believe them to be true. But the general gist of my last post was that I do not think Philosophy does this any better than say The Terminator movies, or The Simpsons cartoons. It's just another way, same with religion. They're all part of a big story to me, none of it is real, but all of it is worth at least a peek.

Again, if I offended, I apologise sincerely. Sometimes, I rant, but I wont' apologise for that.

peace
Frankanger

[This message has been edited by frankanger (edited 01-28-2003).]