There Is No Weapon Like Knowledge
These are difficult and trying times for Believers. Believer of course is usually a strictly Evangelical phrase, but I want to redefine its use on Big Bubba’s Big Blog. Here a Believer is one who believes that this great and blessed Nation is firmly established upon Judeo-Christian principles. It is that rock of Judeo-Christian principles that has indeed made this Nation a bright and shining city on a hill. Without that rock this nation will fade into the obscurity shared by all the other Godless nations that have preceded us.
I will confess that it absolutely drives Big Bubba up the proverbial wall to hear the pseudo intellectual, progressive liberal moral relativist crowd saying that this Nation is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I am especially aggravated that the accusation is cast that my distant cousin, Thomas Jefferson, did not share the religious beliefs of his kinsmen.
My daily bread, as a Believer, is The Federal Patriot. Have you noticed their bug in the right column? Why don’t you go right now and read Federalist Patriot No. 05-18, Friday, 8 May 2005. The top of the fold is a great article about public prayer and the President. This digest will give you a great feel for the flavor of The Federal Patriot.
Look further down so you don’t miss the quote by leading leftist rocket surgeon, Bill Maher,
“....They can always rally their Jesus freaks, and then they will win the election." --Bill Maher
The quote is even better when you read the rest of the article to put it in context. The Federal Patriot is a great way to stay informed of the intellectual positions of this Nation’s conservative movement. This is a great way for the intellectual conservative to stay informed of the issues of our times.
I will confess that it absolutely drives Big Bubba up the proverbial wall to hear the pseudo intellectual, progressive liberal moral relativist crowd saying that this Nation is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I am especially aggravated that the accusation is cast that my distant cousin, Thomas Jefferson, did not share the religious beliefs of his kinsmen.
My daily bread, as a Believer, is The Federal Patriot. Have you noticed their bug in the right column? Why don’t you go right now and read Federalist Patriot No. 05-18, Friday, 8 May 2005. The top of the fold is a great article about public prayer and the President. This digest will give you a great feel for the flavor of The Federal Patriot.
Look further down so you don’t miss the quote by leading leftist rocket surgeon, Bill Maher,
“....They can always rally their Jesus freaks, and then they will win the election." --Bill Maher
The quote is even better when you read the rest of the article to put it in context. The Federal Patriot is a great way to stay informed of the intellectual positions of this Nation’s conservative movement. This is a great way for the intellectual conservative to stay informed of the issues of our times.
posted by BigBubba at 5:44 PM
![[Link to THOMAS Home Page]](http://thomas.loc.gov/images/link.gif)
20 Comments:
Bubba you can't reason with the left on this subject. I have had about twenty discussions on the Chemist on the subject. I never get a straight answer from the left on what they fear.
BB,
I've been getting daily Federalist Patriot brief's for years now. A daily return to first principles always helps me put things into perspective and cope with the madness of modern day life.
-FJ
BB,
Please forgive me for intruding with some FPM material, but it is "on-topic" and might give you a chuckle or two...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18095
-FJ
FJ, Great article thanks for pointing the way. For some reason this particular direction reminds me of the great Dr. Evil quote (to the best of my memory) when talking about his father, "He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. This was typical of the sort of general malaise of the genius."
Is it I, or my imagination? Is American academia overloaded with question mark inventors? What is really hilarious is they take theirselves so doggone seriously. We need to give them what they deserve, laughter.
BB,
Let me start with an apology for the "rambling" nature of this response.
Every academic dreams of discovering something new and applying his "name" (read - ???'s/ legacy) to it and attaining the corresponding fortune/fame. But my take on the problem with today's academics is that they are also the products of their own institutions (who are mostly "theorists" building upon a scholarly edifice whose scope already extends in many directions beyond their limited vision and ken in a chain-of-reasoning link-by-new-link type manner) who set to work without first surveying the plans for the entire edifice or "heaven forbid"... starting "anew" from their own "first principles" and building a new edifice skeleton/frame of reference by leaping from logical mountaintop to mountaintop.
They start in this "blindfolded" manner so as to discover/ create their ???'s starting from the vantage point of standing on a "giant's" shoulders (ie Einstein), but unfortunately all they've learned about the academic edifice they are building upon was learned second-hand and incompletely on the college-based academic "Chinese-menu" plan (choose 2 philosophy courses from column A, and one from column B) and so they can only extend a single "branch" of pre-existing knowledge in a single direction and therfore do not understand the in-significance of their overall accomplishments (like blindfolded tight-rope-walkers who only know a single strand of a spider web). (Jonathan Swift's "Battle of the Books" aptly describes the spider's dilemna).
The last "great/ giant" contributors/ foundation over-haulers/mountain leapers of that academic edifice were the late nineteenth, early twentieth century polymath's who understood that entire edifice from "plimsoll to keelson" starting from first principles (Nietzsche and Freud come to mind in philosophy, but Einstein in physics based upon Newton or Leibnitz in math).
Charles Murray's book "Human Accomplishment" highlights some of the problem with the "post-modern's".
They do all this instead of trying to simply learn what is "possible" knowledge (based upon "nature's" forms, which is what the Greeks focused on), and then what is already "known" about the existing edifice (focus of the moderns), so as to be able to pass this information on to their students or locate the "flaw" in the first principle of the "old" edifice (Marx thought he had found one). But then, where are the ???'s in exploring the "known"? It's hardly a way to fortune and acclaim. But yet, it's nice to have a "map" of the known universe/ multiverse before you start your quest for new ???'s.
And so the result of the "de-constructionists" efforts simply has to be laughter. For he never learned how to "construct". He's simply a "demolition expert". His direction is "backwards"... he is only qualified to become an "academic caveman".
-FJ
We have such an overwhelming base of knowledge available to us. Sometimes half the battle is knowing where to start with that base and how much to try and absorb. I always talk about my history major was Western European from the Congress of Vienna to World War I, but, my studies took me into a major side issue, Russia. Somehow Russia seemed more important to my studies than France or England. That knowledge base almost seems like a koi pond in a tin wash tub compared to the mass of scientific data available to modern researchers in the sciences.
Where does one begin his intellectual inquiry in the information era? I get the Federal Patriot “Brief,” “Chronicle,” and “Digest.” I also get the daily Federal Patriot “Quote.” I want to read them all, but never do. I have hundreds of books in my house that I am going to sell. One of my internet sites boasts of 73,000 volumes available. That’s one site. Who needs a home library with all that available?
The daunting tasks presented by information age has produced quantities of intellectual slackers. They are perfectly content to misinterpret, construct, and deconstruct whatever data necessary to support their point. Tainted and fabricated research is their stock in trade. Amazingly some of them get caught and brazen their way right through the situation with their position in academia intact. The popular saying comes to mind “if you can’t impress them with your knowledge, dazzle them with your B.S.” Need I even mention the role of political correctness in this whole sorry mess? When the politically correct deities make their pronouncements, the heavens couldn’t protect those who would defy that which is politically correct.
One of my favorite analogies is to dredge up the tale of Comrade Lysenko. That is getting to be less and less funny since we are starting to see our very own Comrade Lysenkos in American academia. Where will it all end? Is there a magic, silver bullet to slay the demons?
My point is all the information that is available to an academic inquirer. Despite all that is available should you start with a total blank, untainted slate and depend on your own intellect to develop an earth shattering theory like Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation? Or, do you spend a lifetime wading through all the information available in your discipline hoping to follow a rabbit off the trail to a successful independent discovery? Often we see academics overwhelmed by the possibilities, hoping for fame and fortune, inventing and fabricating erroneous, if not false support for their work. Was Dan Rather a liar and inventor with dreams of a Pulitzer Prize taking the easy way out? Moral relativism and exorcising God from our schools and government is certainly working its magic by eliminating needless concerns for honesty and integrity in our society.
Neptune, I would be happy to share ideas with you. My original thought was "stupid media question of the day" commentary. I have some other ideas for a another more commercial site. You have my e-mail address.
dumbwich, kingdom, smingdom, when are we going fishing? You are doing a most excellent job as the site lunatic and conspiracy theorist. Keep up the good work.
Hey Big Bubba you are listed on Blog Shares
I think that problem of the academic "starts" right where you indicate. There's this huge "mountain" of existing knowledge, and so it's hard to decide both where to start, and how to "tackle" this potentially infinite pile.
Like you, I serendipetously picked a point and started sampling. My interests inclined me towards contemporary military histories, and so I dabbled in tales of modern wars and generals. Working in the civilian defense industry, I also spent a lot of time learning about the latest weapons systems and their capabilities. A Naval Reserve Officer, I also wanted to understand how to use these weapons systems, and how my potential enemies might use their equivalents. Using compiled histories of US destroyer and submarine operations in the Pacific during WWII, I began delving heavily into recent theatre level naval tactics.
But eventually, I began delving further and further backwards in history. General strategies and tactics of Clauswicz, Bonaparte, Sun Tzu, and then I bought Thucydides very first "western" history of the Peloponnesian (sic) War. I then determined to start at the "beginning" of history and work my ways back to modern day. But a funny thing happened. I began reading Will Durant's "History of Civilization" series (from Greeks through the Renaissance)and on a lark, read his "Story of Philosophy".
At that point, about five years ago, a light bulb went off and I switched from studying "secondary sources" to "primary ones". I focused on exclusively upon "Plato" and read a translation of every dialogue he either wrote, or was "alleged" to have written. In Plato, I found an entire "system" for classifying and acquiring knowledge complete with starting points and ways of exploring the "limits" of both knowledge of reality and unreality, reason, and even unreason. I then "sampled" Aristotle and discovered that he simply regurgitated Plato, but in a much less "understandable" but more modern-like form.
Through this experience, I also discovered, much to my surprise, that the "ancients" were light-years ahead of us "moderns" in their understanding of this whole problem. It was then that I really understood, for the very first time, WHY "they" always formed the "foundational educational resource" for scholars of the past (through the early twentieth century).
I then moved from Greeks to Romans and discovered that they "largely" were imitators of the Greeks. I then followed the early Christians (St. Augustine) and learned much of the same. I actually began to see where these influences formed and affected Christianity (Catholicism in particular).
I then jumped to a new mountain (using Durant's "Story of Philosophy" as a loose guide) and read a little Kant, then a little Schopenhauer, and then locked upon Rousseau and read everything he ever wrote (with the exception of his novel...an oversite which I will correct one day). Throughout the entire process, one could readily see the continuance of a line of thought and a system for understanding it.
I followed up with a sampling readings of American philosphers, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, before reading translations of everything Nietzsche had penned, followed by as much Freud as I could stomache (as he and Nietzsche also parallelled Dostoyevski and James). Again, little of what developed from all this reading expanded beyond the limits of what I had learned about the nature of knowledge from Plato (Nietzsche being the sole exception - he elaborated on the concept or "errors inherent in all knowledge" and of "evolution" or Heraclitian flux and the evolutionary nature of knowledge and that he had a non-system for teaching that was "similar" to Plato's...he didn't tell you things, he made you "think" about them and thereby made you really "understand" the truth of what he was saying... for you had to also consider the possibilities inherent in the falsity of what he said).
I then "finally" retuned to America's "founding" philosopher, no not your distant cousin, but Benjamin Franklin and read a bunch "by" and "about" him and his influence on the French Revolution and Europe. In so doing, I touched again upon the Christian roots of John Adams and saw and began to really appreciate his federalist influences in the US Constitution as opposed to the looser union favored by Franklin and Jefferson. And in those differences lay the American democratic and republican parties and their long traditions and constituencies.
And so, to wrap up a long story, I do believe there is a silver bullet. It is to pick a philosopher like "Plato" who has a "system" and read EVERYTHING he writes, taking it ALL to be "Gospel" truth and learn to understand him and everything you can about his culture (non-USA)...preferably a pre-curser civilization that has seen both "rise" and "fall". With that, you have a "reference point" from which to compare and judge the efficacy of our "contemporary" society. It must be done using PRIMARY sources, not synthetic histories by modern authors. You can then validate his system using that of another philospher from a different civilization (ie Nietzsche).
But there is a possible shortcut. Pick up the Bible and do the same. Read it like it's "Gospel" Truth. You'll no longer understand "all" the possibilities, but understand only the most advantageous possibility for mankind based upon the existance of a single universe. Only if you go the philosophy route, you'll truely "believe" it.
Or else read a "system" of Great Books. I find that much of what I did serendipetously is a formal program at St' John's and at other "Great Books" curriculum based schools. I can tell you that my enjoyment of Shakespeare increased over a hundred fold after reading and acquiring an understanding of Plato.
Well I ramble too much, and say far too little. Only I will add this, at least I know my way around the infinte pile now. I may not have contributed anything to it, but I enjoyed the heck out of "walking around" it.
-FJ
The ultimate proof that netizens have entirely too much time on their hands.
The University of Poland has spent four years working on, may I present to you, the Polish digital clock.
I used to want to write a book about practical leadership. I did some time as a leadership instructor at an NCO school. I thought about my role and how to fulfill my responsibilities to my mission, my men and myself. Does the military provide a better life tool than the problem solving process?
I finally had an epiphany about writing my book so I didn't. My epiphany? I realized that I had learned everything that I needed to know about leadership in Sunday School.
Luke 6:31 (American Standard Version) And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
I passed that thought to retired Army SGM J.D. Pendry (website: JD's Bunker) who did write his own book about leadership, The Three Meter Zone. His response was OK, but, I open my book on leadership with, Micah 6:8 (American Standard Version)
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? what do you think? Yes, I can go with that, but, for brief clarity of purpose I prefer Luke 6:31. I am going to add J.D.'s link it is a very good site. There I found out that the Army now allows soldiers to carry umbrellas. I see the beginning of the end with that one, folks.
Farmer John, I know exactly what you mean about The Great Books, St. John's etc. It is a great program. In my youth I would read the old books, about old times (by the way I was an Admiral Hornblower fanatic) and I was always jealous of the mention of a classical education. Where is the public indignation that we have passed on the classical education in favor of Ward Churchill, and his ilk, and the institutions of higher ignorance that we suffer?
Your prod sent me to the bookshelf where I keep my Great Books. I pulled down Plato and resolved to wade in and do some serious reading. I opened to Charmides and immediately departed for the ancient Athenian Agora. I have been there before. I have stood on the Acropolis on a mercilessly hot Athenian summer afternoon and been awestruck by all that had preceded me in time. I walked where Paul walked through the Agora, up the slopes of the Acropolis. Where better to feel the power of Paul's sermon to the people of Athens about their "Unknown God?"
"People of Athens, I see that you are in every respect religiously exact. For as I walked about and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even came upon an altar inscribed, 'To a God Unknown.' Now what you thus worship unknowingly I would proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23).
BB,
I had prepared a rather lengthy commentary on leadership/ command but failed to "publish" it after editting. I'll try re-constructing it again later.
-FJ
On Leadership/ Command. Much as I may share the sentiments BB expresses concerning the knowledge required of a leader, I must take at least some umbrage at what was said. To recap, BB states he learned:
"everything that I needed to know about leadership in Sunday School.
Luke 6:31 (American Standard Version) And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
He goes on to state that he had once earlier in life phrased the knowledge required of a leader thusly:
"Micah 6:8 (American Standard Version) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God"
I admit to holding a "preference" and lean towards BB's earlier sentiments and advice to JD for his book. But in order to challenge the validity of both sentiments however, I hereby bring in the brilliant polemicist, Nietzsche, of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" fame along with Machiavelli to critique. Why Nietzsche? Well he was the son of a Lutheran minister. And Machiavelli? Only because he's much closer to us today than was Thucydides or Livy. From "Zarathustra":
"But that ye may understand my gospel of good and evil, for that purpose will I tell you my gospel of life, and of the nature of all living things. The living thing did I follow; I walked in the broadest and narrowest paths to learn its nature.
With a hundred-faced mirror did I catch its glance when its mouth was shut, so that its eye might speak unto me. And its eye spake unto me. But wherever I found living things, there heard I also the language of obedience. All living things are obeying things. And this heard I secondly: Whatever cannot obey itself, is commanded. Such is the nature of living things. This, however, is the third thing which I heard- namely, that commanding is more difficult than obeying. And not only because the commander beareth the burden of all obeyers, and because this burden readily crusheth him:- An attempt and a risk seemed all commanding unto me; and whenever it commandeth, the living thing risketh itself thereby. Yea, even when it commandeth itself, then also must it atone for its commanding. Of its own law must it become the judge and avenger and victim.
How doth this happen! So did I ask myself. What persuadeth the living thing to obey, and command, and even be obedient in commanding? Hearken now unto my word, ye wisest ones! Test it seriously, whether I have crept into the heart of life itself, and into the roots of its heart!
Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master. That to the stronger the weaker shall serve- thereto persuadeth he his will who would be master over a still weaker one. That delight alone he is unwilling to forego.
And as the lesser surrendereth himself to the greater that he may have delight and power over the least of all, so doth even the greatest surrender himself, and staketh- life, for the sake of power.
It is the surrender of the greatest to run risk and danger, and play dice for death. And where there is sacrifice and service and love-glances, there also is the will to be master. By by-ways doth the weaker then slink into the fortress, and into the heart of the mightier one- and there stealeth power."
I may not entirely agree with FN, but Nietzsche's writing raises an important question. What is the Commander's burden he speaks of, and for "what" must he atone? For if BB's Luke 6:31 or Micah 6:8 quotes were ALL that is required of leadership, then all men might conclude that leaders would have little to atone for and that leadership might be a moral and upright and even desirable kind of thing.
My own Naval Weapons instructor in college disevowed me of the notion that there was anything moral in leadership for war when he once characterized the difference between tactics and strategy thusly. "Tactics is when you radio for air support to lay down napalm in the enemy controlled village. Strategy is when you radio for air support to have them drop a case of Hershy bars in the village square, wait ten minutes, and then radio for more air support to lay down the napalm."
And of course, one must also wonder what Machiavelli would have thought of BB's other answer to the question as to the knowledge required of a leader. Would Micah kill the innocent heirs of a deposed prince so as to head off possible "future" violence? Might a single immoral act prevent many more such future immoralities? Could Micah order a "tactical" air strike on the enemy controlled village where chances are, many innocents would die? He might. How about a "strategic" strike??? And so, where does one draw the correct line between the two examples?
Nietzsche's answer is that the leader makes his "own" law and must therefore become its' judge and avenger and victim. The Book must be abandoned entirely. At least Micah cautions the leader to love kindness, and to act justly.
But to the many who do not possess the requisite "will to power" to actively seek command, or who are confused as to what knowledge is required of a leader, perhaps it is best to simply avoid leadership entirely and be content to follow. For un-certainty in knowledge can be a troubling, sometimes even "haunting" responsibility indeed.
Me, I admit to have initially sought, yet later avoided leadership responsibilities. But avoidance is not any real solution, for if you submit to the leadership of others, how can you be sure that they will do a "better" job, or are not actually "weaker" in many ways than you? Nietzsche and Machiavelli both seem "eager" for the leadership role.
The leaders in ancient times had codes of honor. Do FN & NM? Will you entrust THEM to the job and thereby buy into their tables of "values" after the battle is done?
-FJ
Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons. Be all my sins remember'd.
-FJ
As an "example" of the extra-moral responsibilities sometimes thrust upon a leader, I commend to you a tale by Sophocles entitled "Philoctetes" in which "wiley" Odysseus (aka Ulysses) must convince a mistreated and abandoned Achaen bowman to recommit to the cause of the Trojan War. In order to accomplish this feat, the wiley leader brings with him the ever truthful and upright son of slain Achilles, Neoptolemus, in whom he confides his plans for deceiving bowman Philoctetes into rejoining the cause (for the cause is lost without his bow). These lies and deceptions are purposefully devised to craft a bond of friendship between the abandoned bowman and Achille's son and gain the warrior's support. In so doing, however, he counts upon the fact that Achille's son will remain true to his father's name and example, and not allow the abandoned bowman to be deceived (for Neoptolemus follows the "code" of honor, and cannot break it). But Odysseus must go "outside" of the code, if his mission is to have even the remotest chance at success.
http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/philoct.html
-FJ
Sorry, I didn't realize that the link I posted above didn't have the whole story... Here's one that does.
http://www.textkit.com/files/philoctetes.pdf
-FJ
University of Poland? Where's that? Do you mean Wroclaw University or the Univeristy of Krakow which gave us Copernicus?
Thanks for the link to the great piece of conceptual art . The Japanese found a way to save that movement, not that Big Bubba has any facility to appreciate the work.
"Thanks for the link to the great piece of conceptual art . The Japanese found a way to save that movement, not that Big Bubba has any facility to appreciate the work."
I am totally perplexed by this remark. What is the connection?
Post a Comment
<< Home