the tenth planet

Revisit Dune ( the whole 6 book series)

2009-07-02T00:32:00.000-07:00

The epic of Dune has had me enthralled ever since I first picked it up in February 2000. The largeness and scope of the story as well as its underlying morality (shown in the guise of Bene Gessirit(BG) amoralism) and finally its great hope for humanity. I have now reread the series 4 and 1/2 times and I still get an enormous amount of insight into the present, especially in the age of Gore/Bush/Kerry/Rove/Limbaugh etc.
At one level its a story about master manipulators who don't seem to care about humanity in general, except in terms of how to use them ( us). But I think this view misses the greatness of Frank Herbert's (FH) project. In book 6 (Chapterhouse Dune) the true goal of the BG is revealed as none other than creating the conditions in which the humans cannot be removed from the Universe, by self annihilation or any other means.
The beautiful rendition of humanity's gifts and assets are held up in separation from our collective faults and tendencies towards self destruction. Our capacity for endless creativity and bringing novelty to the world are worth saving no matter how 'bad' we can be. That this Hope can be held up in the face of our endless capacity for pettiness and egoism, as shown in the story, only makes the power of the message more useful to the present where we seem to be steering away from any kind of collective or universal understanding of morality. In the age of the justification of torture and grand scale public thievery as seen in the banking scandals of 2008 and the apparent destruction of any recognizable meaning for 'accountability' or 'justice'.
For me, Dune shows how the momentary disturbances of present history don't count in the long run. As long as we remain existent in the universe then we will evolve and all our suffering will be 'worth' it because the gift of life and the goodness of being alive are their own justification. Life cannot be captured in words. This is the lesson of Humberto Maturana, Count Alfred Korzybski, G.I. Gurdjieff and all the Masters. This is also the massage of Frank Herbert.

Yet more insightful insight....

2007-07-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

Finally someone from the 'left' talks about our collective dark side..
check it out on Commondreams.org:

Why Bush Hasn’t Been Impeached
by Gary Kamiya
Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 by Salon.com

to which the Xthplanet spoke from on high....

"Congratulations Gary, what a great article!!!
Alas, from the many and predictable responses ( A- the angry rejectionist,B- the dreamer …”…but we must keep impeachment alive”, C- I’m moving etc.) I can see I’m in a minority in seeing value in this article’s perspective. I think that the constitutional process requires a commitment to the ‘rational principle’ which should consist in A) accepting the reality of the ‘world we encounter’ while not being trapped in the ‘world we want’ and B) being willing to evaluate our actions and reactions as if we were a third party, like a ‘martian’(see Noam Chomsky). I think this article does both in a timely way. Too many critics of the president are forgetful that he did win a democratic election in which a certain segment of OUR fellow Americans were swayed to vote for him and, as this article so delicately points out, he did, in effect, simply do what many (of OUR fellow) Americans wanted him to, which was enact revenge on…whoever. I think that coming to terms with the darker side of OUR collective ‘Americaness’ is a healthy step towards resolving pickle we’re in (a prez that America disapproves of and no one willing to do anything about it).
I especially like how this article ends. It reminds me of what I’ve felt is Achilles heal of the whole wonderful Rovian universe which I call the McCarthy moment when Joseph Welch shamed Senator Joe on live TV to raucous applause. It’s clear to me that the ’spectacle’ of such an event can steer the ship of our public debate but that it is better for us all to revive the rational principle upon which OUR amazing nation was founded."

Sentiments worth reading

2007-07-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

-According to the Xthplanet....

FROM COMMON DREAMS:

Conservatism is Dead. Long Live Fictional Conservatism!
--xthplanet says-I’m in agreement with kivals(above) especially in divining the force which drives the right. I think there is a general effort by the right to hide that force out of an accurate sense that the public would not support them if they saw them in the way the right sees themselves. Defining this force should be a central effort of those who wish the public to vote another way.

or this gem--

Bush Team Is Adept Only at Bungling

by Andrew Greeley

Published on Friday, March 30, 2007 by The Chicago Sun Times

to which xthplanet replied:

I think the article is right on in its story of a lack of serious minded ‘deliverers’ of policy but the ‘frame’ is not useful for distinguishing the heart of ‘Bushism’. ‘Incompetence’ has a useful meaning only in relation to the expectation of ‘competence’ or, more bluntly, the expectation that someone who ‘cares’ and is more loyal to the ‘nation’ and its Constitutional ‘ideals’ than to the image of their boss is in each top job posting in the Executive. The belief that this is the case is supposedly strengthened by the reality that each of the Cabinet positions is confirmed by a supposedly deliberative process in the Senate and those ‘deliberators’ are each accountable to their electorates.
The middle point between this article and the points listed above is to realize that being competent in the job in the sense that most liberals, let alone Americans expect, is not the goal. In the most loving way possible and without rancor I wish more of those who disagree with the Bush administration would just notice that it CANNOT help people who are not their patrons. I mean this in the most objective and observational way I can muster. It’s the style of government that ‘they’ practice. It is a government of special interest. A natural consequence of power unconstrained. Those who disagree with this administration only undermine the impact of their own message when they get upset, emotional, surprised, etc. at the policies, actions or rhetoric of the ‘Bushies’. By this point (6.5yrs) it should be non-controversially evident that: ‘they’ exhibit a type of pettiness (or lack of concern for the value of actual (non-fetal or brain dead) human life which arises from the style governing ‘they’ practice which precludes ‘them’ from enacting any action which helps ‘non-patrons’ i.e. the general public. Helping America see this should be a central goal of progressive rhetoric. The world of Karl seems to be divided into those who paid (contributed to the ’cause’) and those who didn’t.
By being angry, surprised, etc. we hide this basic reality from the third party public. We also fool ourselves because their seemingly endless ability to cause pain for others should be an obvious end point of the style of governing they practice.

A new trend

2007-06-21T06:44:00.000-07:00

I wrote this response to John Zogby's editorial claiming that the response to Katrina could be a more important influence on the 2008 election than Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.dbm?ID=1326

Xthplanet:

John,

I just read your editorial “Will Katrina Be Our Defining Moment?”. This is one of the more positive signs I’ve heard about our common electorate I’ve heard yet. Kudos to you for going out on a limb (i.e. being ahead of the polling). I think that the Katrina response, more than any other, has exposed, consciously or unconsciously, the deep amoralism which under girds our political/economic system (modern Market theory) and the idea that you sense a deep response in the public indicates to me that ‘we’ might just opt for a humane theory of government in our near future. (amoralism defined here as the argument that it is Irrational to care about people that you are not related to.) One need only breifly look through the writings of Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises to find reference to the ‘need’ to remove the human sensibility from economic arguments. In case I’m being unclear, I am saying that the Katrina response is a direct result of Market theory in action as the Administration has spent the last six years making the Federal Government more in line with these ideas.
I think that, if you are correct, the public has rightly sensed the ‘real-world’ consequences of this theoretical point through the Katrina response. Although the ‘amoralist’ framework I’m asserting is more overt in ‘conservative’ rhetoric, the failure of any on the ‘liberal’ side to address it directly means to me that we, collectively, are in a kind of free-fall waiting for someone, anyone to show us ‘a better way’ whether or not that way leads to the results that you sense the public desires . Of coarse the legitimizing of caring, in a theoretical sense, must be coupled with success in the marketplace, as very few advocates of caring seem to see the importance of, for the response to the Katrina ‘failure’ to be more than pandering to emotions (pathos in a rhetorical sense). I still remain hopeful that you are sensing a true desire on the part of the public to support a politician who can rationalize caring about us Americans and our society at the federal level.

Remember

2007-03-21T09:51:00.000-07:00

Remember: If you are AFRAID...."THEY" have won

Remember: Love your neighbor as yourself.... especially those with whom you disagree

Remember: Be a Wellstone Democrat....Love a Republican

Remember: φροδο λιωεσ....φνορδ

What does a Conservative conserve?

2007-03-15T12:59:00.000-07:00

The best answer to this question that I have found is within this quote:

"Conservativism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."

Friedrich A. Hayek
The Road To Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, 1944
From the forward to the 1954 (i.e. 10 year anniversary) edition, 19th printing 1967 pg. xi

Mr. Hayek's book was called by both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan their 'bible', this was before presence of the 'christian' right as a domineering force in public rhetoric. Hayek has been portrayed as the father of the modern 'free market' movement and yet this quote stands in sharp contrast to what we see as represented by the phrase 'free market' today which seems to be all about protecting established privilege and granting special access to some on an unequal basis. As far as I can tell this sentiment most coherently sums up the central organizing principle of the GWB government. It appears to be all about special access.

My Hero has passed

2007-01-12T14:32:00.000-08:00

A curmudgeony optimist, a guerilla ontologist extrordinaire, a connector of humane futures and collector of sombunall challenges to the plethora of status quos....He appears uncorporally risen....

Thanks Bob.

Cleaning up the debate

2006-11-16T18:02:00.000-08:00

I just read the Brooks (11/16/06) column 'The Heyday of Snobbery'. He is 'riffing' on the culture of elite putdown connecting the phenomenon of 'Borat' (which I haven't seen) to the writings of H.L. Mencken. While I think he is, as usual, being the 'thing' he's criticizing, he once again seems to have put into words a point I having been trying to make when, in his litany of snobbishness he points to 'blue America' snobbery as an effort to legitimize the putting down of the people who voted for GWB. I think he has revealed, even though it wasn't his purpose, the cheap destructiveness of this type of dialog. For all practical purposes putting down is indistinguishable from dehumanizing and that is not its most salient effect: putting down is also indistinguishable from writing off and that is the death of a solid progressive majority.
I personally think that we all need a 'private place' to shed emotion about the things in life that frustrate us, a place where 'off color' jokes are OK, where its OK to be mad at the people we disagree with, and this 'place' can be large like a radio audience or small like a group of friends or even just one other person. The problem comes from making this 'private' activity 'public', or justifying its expression in 'public' discourse. It's up to each of us to delineate where that boundary falls but that in no way relieves us of the responsibility of setting a boundary for ourselves and sticking to it.
One school of thought says that our truest self is our public self, that is the face that we show to the world. This is the side of ourselves that works against our self perceived flaws. Although this aspect of our selves is subject to all the nastiness of our own insecurities, I would argue that this is also the place where civility shows up and the place where civilization is created from.

"They" Cannot help people (draft)

2006-09-01T10:28:00.000-07:00

In the most loving way possible and without rancor I wish more of those who disagree with the Bush administration would just notice that it CANNOT help people who are not their patrons. I mean this in the most objective and observational way I can muster. It's the style of government that 'they' practice. It is a government of special interest. A natural consequence of power unconstrained. Those who disagree with this administration only undermine the impact of their own message when they get upset, emotional, suprised, etc. at the policies, actions or rhetoric of the 'Bushies'. By this point (5.5yrs) it should be non-controversally evident that: 'they' exhibit a type of pettiness (or lack of concern for the value of actual (non-fetal or brain dead) human life) which arises from the style governing 'they' practice which precludes 'them' from enacting any action which helps 'non-patrons' i.e. the general public. Helping the public see this should be the central goal of proggresive rhetoric. The world of Karl seems to be divided into those who paid (contributed to the 'cause') and those who didn't.
By being angry, suprised, etc. we hide this basic reality from the third party public. We also fool ourselves because their seemingly endless ability to cause pain for others should be an obvious end point of the style of governing they practice.

The Eternal Struggle

2006-08-07T14:27:00.000-07:00

The most useful comment I have about the mid-east is that the only way out of this mess is shame. First, the Israeli state can find a way to publically care about Arab life thus shaming the terrorist calculus of 10 Arabs = 1 Jew and shaming the Arab political class, who seem to get endless political clout out of keeping their populace from noticing how little they value Arab life. Second, it is my small opinion that any Arab who advocates for non-defensive harm against Israelis must think that Arabs are worth 1 tenth of a Jew too. As is quoted by the late great Frank Herbert in the beginning of his 5th Dune story, in his Ode to his wife, REVENGE IS FOR CHILDREN. Of course I mean that revenge is a completely selfish need which can NEVER be acted on for someone elses benifit. The culture of revenge apparently makes for great politics (keeps em angry) on both sides of the line, but my message for anyone who claims to support the state of Israel is that it must be seen that 6million Israelis surrounded by 50million Arabs can only lead to the destruction of Israel if this tit for tat continues too long.

Slogans and sayings etc

2006-06-23T13:13:00.000-07:00

Be a Wellstone Democrat: Love a Republican!!

Americans Against State Sponsered Human Sacrifice

Republicans are people too!! Even if they don't show it well

Progressives succeed, in this country, when their causes are firmly grounded in the Bible and the Constitution; Quit ceding the territory.

Liberals believe in the inherent benefits from our pursuit of the truth; Conservatives believe in the limitations inherent in our ability to recognize the truth. - Joe Schaedler

The pitfall for the Liberal is the belief that the truth is possessable; the pitfall for the Conservative is that the pursuit is not worth the effort.

A great slogan for whenever the prez or vice show up in your town

THANK YOU, GREAT LEADER, FOR OUR NEW 'CONSERVATIVE' RELIGION:

BLIND FAITH IN THE STATE

the NSA "scandal" (Draft)

2006-06-21T17:36:00.000-07:00

The trouble with the many comments about using the NSA to spy on us is that they, almost universally, fail to note what it is that is scandalous about the story and in the confusion put all the blame on an activity which is legitimate. To unravel this start with the PURPOSE of the F.I.S.A. court. Without getting into minutia, the uncontroversial conclusion of the Church commitee was that power had been abused, that the executive branch had, in fact, lied about who it was wiretapping and why. The remedy was not to say that the executive could not wiretap but that it had to demonstrate to another branch of government, the judicial, (whose essential quality, in this debate, is that they don't work for the executive), that its desires were constitutional. The main point here is that the executive gets to wiretap!!!! The problem with the administration ignoring the F.I.S.A. court is that there is a vastly increased potential for abuse. Whenever anyone says that the problem is the wiretapping the rejoiunder is "we're looking for terrorists". Rhetorically the debate is now lost because the executive should be "looking for terrorists" and because the actual problem has been obscured, which is "how do we know who you're are wiretapping?". We used to have a perfectly American response to this conundrum which was the 'balance of powers' represented by the F.I.S.A. court. The administration's response is the unAmerican 'you've just have to trust us'.

Progressive Power (Draft)

2006-06-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

When will the opposition identify what it opposes? Most importantly, when will it confront the fact that it opposes human beings??? the only way for progressives to get ahead of the right is to treat them as humans, deeply flawed maybe, but humans none the less, fully deserving of that basic acknowledgment. Progressive power can only come from the humanization of the opposition. This is the lesson of Paul Wellstone. Its up to those who believe that a better world is possible to do the work of seeing humans even when 'they' are doing everything possible to hide their humanness, i.e. their connectedness to all life, the connectedness that demands responsibility for the whole.

This is a war of rhetoric. How to undermine what the right has done should be the goal. But first the progressive or anti-Bush forces need to come to terms with the reality that the right has succeeded, with its rhetoric, in undermining the general public's faith in liberalism.

Torturous times (Draft)

2006-06-13T15:49:00.000-07:00

I think the defining issue of our times is the 'normalizing' of torture. This activity taken by itself should evoke a response somewhat equivalent to pedophilia. The fact that this response is not common is a testimony to phenomena of media influence. Most people can imagine their reaction to witnessing someone they care about, even if that person is guilty of some horrendous act, being tortured. They would object. They would instinctively 'know' that to have complete control of a human being and then to cause pain is about the most cowardly act there is. The ability to have some connection/identification with people we don't know, as if we did know them is one of the bases of a democratic society and the notion of human rights.
Of course the issue with torture is more than the act itself but the purpose accomplished by the act. I argue that torture has no place in a democratic society because such a society as ours is predicated on the premise that humans have rights. That is, without enforcable rights, the title 'democratic'; has no meaning. On the other hand, a society which aspires to 'empire' , as is the normal aspiration in our collective past, must, by definition, destroy the reality of 'human rights' (that is, the enforcibility) for two basic reasons: 1) empires must be able to kill people to take what those people don't want to give, and 2) empires must retain the ability to terrorize their own populations in order to keep the wealth they 'garner' concentrated.
It makes perfect sense, in this arguement, for those who aspire to empire, to assert that they believe in human rights as long as those 'rights' are not enforcable.
The politics of empire are based on image not being. The highest crime in an empire is to make those who are 'above' you "look bad". The highest crime in a democratic society is to violate rights. Of coarse no society is perfect, however our amazing society is founded on the possibility of becoming more democratic as time passes. As we are collectively learning now, the movement towards greater democracy can go backwards.
In my mind, the best defense against those who would make the U.S. an empire is to assert the connection between human rights and democracy over and over again, always remembering that the guilty are human and have rights too.