A few weeks ago I was working security at a popular spot here in Halifax. I am not one to overexert my authority and I am a strong believer in diplomacy and discretion. That being said, I came to the conclusion that a certain individual not be allowed re-entry into bar x as he was way too intoxicated. The individual in question did not object; his friend, however, thought he would give me an earful as he was unhappy with my decision (albeit the right one). Despite my attempt to be nice, the “friend” felt the need to point out that he was in the military and that he was protecting “assholes” like me. I proceeded to tell them to have a good night and refused to get drawn into an irrational argument. My political ideologies aside, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and woman serving overseas and to suggest otherwise because I was doing the job I was paid to do is completely absurd. I am certainly not comparing all members of the Canadian Forces to one individual but, I would think that someone in such a position would have a little more discipline and respect the need for law and order. —Diplomat
This article appears in Sep 8-14, 2011.
You will find that in all walks of life and everywhere you go.
100% correct on all counts, OP. Nothing the cheapens the service of honorable men and women quicker than some drunken mutt trying to use it to justify their own socially aberrant behavior.
Just add alcohol and all bets are off. I watched a CF douche IN UNIFORM get all up in some white dude’s grill because said white dude was ‘acting black’. This was 4pm on a saturday afternoon for fucks sakes. Nice SVC BN representin’, bro.
Instant asshole, just add liquor. Lot’s of them in the military OB.
If by chance it happens again, and it most likely will, ask for their Unit and Commander’s name. That usually shuts them up. If not, the MP’s are always willing to lend a hand.
First off Diplomat, I commend you on keeping a cool head and not getting drawn into an irrational argument, as you said. Extremely professional of you. May I suggest that if this type of incident happens again, ask to see the person’s ID, (military one, preferrably), and get his/her name and rank. Inform this person that if they continue to push the issue, the military police will be called and their unit can/will be notified. This should shut them down, if they have half a brain cell left. Incidents of public intoxication or beligerence are dealt with much differently under military law, especially if there is a potential for embarrassment towards the military. I would hope that in this instance, the sense of entitlement displayed was simply due to having a bit too much to drink and that this is not the norm for our military members.
A friend of mine son works at a bar and had the same thing happen to him but it was our Halifax finest pulling that one. An off duty cop figured he could pull rank in a bar. Unfortunately it only reflected poorly on his-self and department.
My ex actually has done this before… he of course was drunk and actually there was some woman who was bothering us for no reason but he said something like, “I WENT TO AFGHANISTAN FOR YOUR SHIT ASS YOU BITCH, SHOW SOME RESPECT.” I kept quiet and left.
Sounds like buddy was a closet flamer from the Village People
uuuughh.. I hope to god no fuckin member of the military ever says that shit to me. I got a buddy in the navy I could never picture him or any of his military friends sayin some shit like that (then again the navy doesn’t have mandatory Afghanistan tours.)
You went to war for who? For me? I’m sorry you must have me confused with this guy:
http://images.askmen.com/celebs/men/busine…
I mean fuck.. people join the military for themselves, not for some stranger. Our tax dollars pay for their education, training, and salaries. I say fair trade.
Good on you OP, I hope if someone does ever say some shit like that to me I won’t get dragged into that argument because it’d be tough to resist. No you fucking didn’t go to Afghanistan, or anywhere, for me, you don’t fuckin know me. Fuuck that would burn me.
There are assholes everywhere. Yup, next time call the MPs, they don’t mind taking assholes away.
I personally believe more of these T shirts need to be handed out to those who deserve them
http://www.moforider.com/id73.html
most guys in the military work hard and play hard. You should have let them in. Their kind of rowdy is different than a street punk kind of rowdy.
Tommy
Brevity is the soul of wit
Long windedness is the sign of an arsehole
More – I should have copy-righted it, been using that expression for over 20 years ;(
There are jackasses in any group or profession. He was way out of line but he was just one. The incident was well played OP.
Pork Pie – If brevity is the soul of wit, and wit is educated insolence, then Montremoleman is Polonius.
Found it 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_kZiG5XJo
LOLz – If Montrealman is Polonius, which of us gets to stab him through the arras (pr. arse)
Volunteers? Seb, MM’s having a tea party. He’s got his little tea set, looking for a little teabag. You interested?
loverly owl kritter guy “then to divert your small mind from your unfortunate predi_ament, i shall tell you an amusing ane_tdote”
REFLECTIONS ON THE MILITARY MIND
The security guard’s account of his run-in with a member of the military stimulated Montrealman to reflect on the nature of the military mind. What is going on here? Why, in the mind of the member of the military, was the security guard an “asshole?” Montrealman has concluded that two distinguishing features are central to any coherent consideration of the military mind: (1) its profound anti-intellectualism at times descending into brutishness and (2) its deeply totalitarian quality which gives rise to what, in psychology, is called the “authoritarian personality.”
(1) Anti-Intellectualism: Let’s start with a paradox. Montrealman has had zero experience with the military but, contrary to those who would maintain that this disqualifies him from pronouncing on its collective mind, the opposite is in fact the case. For the military mind lacks reflective self-awareness. His thinking is best described as strategic, as means-end linear. There is no reflective dimension to his thought. He never questions the accuracy of his mental processes. For example, it is inconceivable that a member of the military would write “Reflections on the Military Mind.” He might write on matters of strategy or previous military exploits but his mind lacks a larger, reflective canvas. In other words, his mind is diametrically opposed to that of the philosopher for whom such considerations are primary. Only a philosopher, uninterested in these piddling subjects, would attempt to decode a subject like the military mind. For the military mind such reflection is laughable when it is not seditious and then, of course, it is therefore subject to brutal repression. One must remember that, ultimately, force constitutes the military’s cerebral cortex.
2. The Authoritarian Personality: The incident with the security guard shows that the military mind is hermetically sealed within military society itself. He regards those outside – the civilians – with a mixture of condescension bordering on contempt. He sees himself as their protector, the champion of the weak-kneed and craven who owe him at the very least total respect and, more properly, total reverence. As the title of the Bitch has it, he has a large sense of “entitlement.”
But his authoritarian mind emerges more clearly from within the ranks of military itself which is largely feudal. Its watchword is unquestioning obedience, the foundation of discipline. He knows his place. He defers to higher rank while expecting similar deference from those holding inferior ranks. As he ascends from “other ranks” -the military equivalent of the mediaeval peasantry – to the officer class – the mediaeval equivalent of knights and nobles – he becomes increasingly a martinet, a popinjay who revels in the privileges of his station. He demands (and gets) obeisance from his inferiors who, in authoritarian fashion, he views with a minimally-disguised contempt. Whether other ranks or officer, however, the military mind clearly displays all the characteristics of the “authoritarian personality.”
Of course, his anti-intellectualism and authoritarian personality come to the fore in times of war when the military’s rationale – violence – is given free rein. Without continual restraint from without, the military dogs of war are loosed in their full blood-lust to engage in pillage, rape and mass murder.
Not a pretty picture.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Twit
MM’s obliviousness is obvious.
Annie, you are truly an inspiring pedagogue. The kind who inspires students to sneak into the school after hours and spray paint the hallways with descriptions of the human love act. I’d advise you to confine your methaneous effusions to that which you know, but as Hugo has proven time and again, that is not your modus operandi.
Yob Tvoyu Mat
Way to go MM, not only did you stereotype everyone in the military, you also insulted their collective intelligence. Bravo!!! Why is it that you have this all consuming need to point out all the flaws in things you don’t fully understand? Really though, who the fuck are you to sit and judge everyone and everything, then tell people how they should think?
I’m pretty sure that the following statement would describe a Viking ideology, but I think you entirely miss the mark when describing the “Canadian” military.
“the military dogs of war are loosed in their full blood-lust to engage in pillage, rape and mass murder”.
What a blindingly stupid statement to make. I’m also pretty sure that when the “Canadian” military is asked to join a NATO campaign, it’s to fight regimes who are employing the sentiment you just expressed. It’s always nice to see people so grateful for the protection of a lifestyle they now can take for granted. I find it interesting that you believe our “way of life” came to us at no cost, free if you will, but I beg to differ, and there are acres and acres of graveyards full of dead soldiers that would argue my case and point for me.
I certainly don’t agree with someone In the military acting this way, but I do believe that people serving in our military deserve a certain amount of respect, even from the civilian branch of society. Just because we are in no immediate danger, doesn’t mean we never were or never will be in the future, and for you to class them all as a bunch of drones, programmed to kill on command without question, is just plain fucking classless. Way to go MM, you’re still a world class douche!!!
Of course if Annie was typical of what comes out of universities, would you want them in the military?
Notice how he forgets the millions spent by the military to send and pay for tuitions for members who attend univeristies and *gasp* attain Bachelor, Masters, and *gasp* even PHDs.
Yup Annie’s PHD definitely stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.
Phhht – Annie couldn’t get press-ganged into a West African child militia. Not as long as there were enough 11 year olds with at least 1 arm to chose from. The Salvation Army might take him, for the Signal Corps, since he acts as if he has a direct line to God Almighty. Do you suppose he was a member of the Kiss Army back in those wild and crazy ’70s.
There’s a quote “I don’t fear my inadequacies, I fear that I haven’t tapped into my full potential” I think this a pretty cool quote, I wish more people lived by it.
RRSPs
REFLECTIONS ON THE MILITARY MIND (II): LEARNING TO THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY
Oh dear, I seem to have stirred up conroversy. Unfortunately, those who have been “stirred up” have singularly failed to think philosohically.
But what is it to “think philosophically?”
The run-of-the-mill responses (they were all run-of-the-mill by the way) have been, as usual, “ad hominem.” I am personally deficient in one respect or another whether it is a failure to appreciate the sacrifices of those who died in previous wars or I am simply incompetent to grasp the realities of the fraught situation. I will not bore you (and me) by responding on an individual basis. But in general terms, all the responses have failed, to one degree or another, to think philosophically and Montrealman, as a consequence, simply snaps his fingers at them all. Why is this so? The reason is that – must it still be repeated? – they have failed to “think philosophically.”
To think philosophically is to raise oneself above the ruck of the individual case, to elevate one’s thinking beyond the strictures of the rough and tumble, to raise oneself beyond the here and now. It is, in other words, to take “the God’s eye view” to the extent that this is humanely possible. It is sometimes called “philosophical perspective” a mark, by the way, of the reflectively intelligent mind and in respect to which the current commenters are clearly deficient. But that is their problem.
Commenters, you must engage me at my own level – that of philosophical reflection -or forever hold your peace.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.…
Great Value – The proper term is Troll.
You should have read some Sun Tzu before you posted, Sméagol.
I shall spank and humiliate you tomorrow. Meh…make that “whenever I get bored”.
LOL Ivan..tis the best…I live with 2…damn, they keep you centralized:)
Merci and Danke… xo
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.…
Gae oot o’ ma heid, Painey. That one was my second choice. >: )
Mon Plaisir Puss. You are so correct. When a 12 lb moggie is perched on your sternum, chirping quizzically in your face. “Prell?” you don’t question why you have to get up. You just do.
Happy Sunday , all.
i miss the wee beasties, the donkey will suffi_e for now. we have never been bereft of felines before…the few months we didn’t are referred to as the dark days
So true, Miss Pain. We were going to wait a year after we lost Hubert. More like 6 weeks. The folks haven’t been catless since they came back from Germany in ,87.
LEARNING TO THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY: REFINING THE CONCEPT
Judging by some of the comments and links it appears that some commenters are vague about what is involved in learning to think philosophically. It is time to refine the concept.
First, some might have been mislead by my reference to a “God’s eye view” to conclude that thinking philosophically is the outcome of some deliverance from some higher realm. My critique of the concept of the military mind, however, was not the product of some insight originating in another world but was completely mundane, totally of “this world,” an activity grounded in reason and not revelation.
But thinking philosophically is of a particular sort, one characterized by the central activity of abstraction. But what is abstraction?
Abstraction involves attention to the context in which the concept under review – the military mind in the present case – derives its meaning. The concept of the military mind itself, in other words, was the result of abstraction from the various contexts in which the military occurs (i.e. in different countries at different times involving different people). Thinking philosophically, in effect, is contextual or interpretive thinking (sometimes called “hermeneutical” thinking if you want the ten dollar term) in which the particular derives meaning from its position in the general, the foreground in relation to the background. As such, it always involves concepts, never matters of empirical fact since facts derive THEIR meaning from concepts and not the other way around.
Further, thinking philosophically is always critical in nature, not in some contrarian sense but by its very nature. Non-critical or a-critical philosophical thinking is a contradiction in terms. A standard philosophical criticism of other philosophical thinking, for example, is that it is uncritically “retailing” the thought of someone else or is simply “ventriloquizing” them, putting one’s own words in another’s mouth. This is a philosophical no-no, nearly as bad as self-contradiction.*
Finally, thinking philosophically is not episodic, some now-and-then scattershot thinking but rather it is habitual. It is the default position through which one automatically views the world. If one abstracted that default position, the world would become meaningless. One would experience “anomie.”
So there we are. Learning to think philosophically involves coming to think critically and contextually on the basis of defensible reasons as opposed to invective and acquiring the habit of doing so.
Now, you can put down your pens, pack away your notebooks, and go play in the fresh air.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
* As a bonus I draw your attention to a very common philosophical self-contradiction. It is frequently asserted that “There is no God’s eye view,” meaning that all views are rooted or contextual. But the assertion itself is a universal which, by its nature, is neither rooted or contextual. It is therefore self-contradictory and must disqualify itself from utterance. You must always avoid negative universal statements.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.…
If everybody contemplates the infinite instead of fixing the drains, many of us will die of cholera. ~John Rich
Being a philosopher, I have a problem for every solution. ~Robert Zend
Notlob Col. LOL!
Listen mate, the palindrome of Notlob would be bolton. It don’t work.
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.…
Love that pic! lol!
Who said I was answering in philosophical verse? I don’t agree that someone should be classed by occupation or be segregated into sub classes of humanity by profession alone. That’s an ignorant way of thinking, and typical of your self professed superiority. If I said that all philosophers are pompous asses fueled by their superiority complexes, and incapable of performing the simplest of tasks in a reactive manner, would probably be over generalization based on my opinion of you.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_46yv6BQbY9s/TAfb…
RRSPs
: Scrotum (Sept. 11, 12:08PM) – Very cute, Scotum, but are you making a philosophical statement here? Are you arguing to the effect that one mustn’t concern oneself with thinking philosophically but only with being warm and cuddly like little kittens in a box? Scrotum, are you rejecting thought itself? But isn’t this self-contradictory since thought was required in order to make the statement in the first place? Write back soon with your thoughts, Scrotum.
: Great Value (1:39PM) – A very pragmatic take on things, GV, but pragmatism, as you know, is simply another philosophical position requiring its own justification. Of course, one could also ask what the point of having functioning drains might be if there is no one around thinking philosophically. Is that the point of life, GV, just sitting there avoiding cholera?
(1:41PM) – In spite of billing himself as a philosopher, Robert Zind has failed to think philosophically. If he can generate problems out of what appeared to be solutions then, of course, they weren’t really solutions in the first place. Once again GV, as with Robert Zind himself, you are framing the issue in terms of a restricted problem-solution dualism and, like Zind, you are letting your pragmatist presuppositions show. (Between ourselves, GV, I don’t think Zind is really a philosopher at all since Pragmatism doesn’t cut it philosophically speaking. It ignores the further question, the point and purpose of applying pragmatic principles which, of course, is the real philosophical question. In other words, GV, pragnatism is concerned with means, not with ends, but it is the ends which are the proper province of philosophy.)
: Stephen Harper (Sept. 12, 8:01AM) – “Philosophical verse?” Anyway Stephen, in my piece about the military mind, I was not “classing” anyone by occupation but simply arguing that there IS a conceptual entity which might be characterized as “the military mind.” In the same way, Stephen, philosophers are not fuelled by their superiority complexes as you seem to suppose but rather by – wait for it Stephen – by their predisposition to think philosophically. But I’m puzzled Stephen. What exactly IS your opinion of me? Write back giving details.
: zZz (8:05AM) – Yes.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
: Cheerio! ( 8:48am) – A very pragmatic take on things, GV, but pragmatism, as you know, is simply another philosophical position requiring its own justification. Of course, one could also ask what the point of having functioning drains might be if there is no one around thinking philosophically. Is that the point of life, GV, just sitting there avoiding cholera?
Cheerios, I find you posts are too much thinking and not enough basic common sense.
I think its wonderful that you want to explore new places, but lets take a look at how an underground miner explores new places, then you might understand why I have a problem with your philosophy….
Whenever a miner drills and blasts a new tunnel, they don’t go running in waving their arms yelling “Wuhoo! we have a new place to explore, lets check it out, boys!”
Nope, in the old days, they would start in a known safe part of the tunnel. Then they would start prying the loose rock from the ceiling, progressively moving towards the new tunnels. Most importantly, they always stand under properly check tunnels.
In addition to prying the loose material down, they also reinforced the safe areas with known science, things like braces and supports. The stronger the brace, the better.
Braces were never just hap hazardly thrown into place. They were measured, qualified, and after they were put in place, they were checked for fit, and their condition was monitored and inspected.
Only a fool goes rushing into the new tunnel. fools didn’t live very long.
As a serving member, I feel embarrassed that this individual has represented the Military in such a way. Good on you for handling it like a pro.
How’s that call center/coffee serving career going for you Montreal Man? I hear with a philosophy degree you get the special honour of putting whipped cream on my coffee.
Let me guess, he went home and played Russian roulette with his gun. I wonder if this particular soldier also left ammo in it?
Cruising for rough trade by pretending to be a veteran, huh Seb. Pretty low class, even for a mud butler, I’d say.
I would say that you are a very frustrating and boring person to be around. Nothing bores me more than people who neglect the validity of statements made by anyone but themselves. I don’t think I have read one single interesting thing in any of the posts you have posted. It’s a shame someone of your vast intellect really has nothing to say, well, nothing anyone wants to listen to anyway. It seems to me that my opinion of you isn’t all that different than all the other people on this forum, needless to say, I think you need to put a little more effort into reading comprehension because I have made myself abundantly clear on what I think of you and your posts. I guess skimming my posts for key words to argue clearly isn’t working for you.
Your post about the “military mind”, is way off. In today’s military the directives are much more diverse than just the linear thought process you outlined. There are combat roles, non combat support roles, humanitarian aid roles, national defense roles and many others I won’t bother going into. Yes, following orders without question is paramount to survival in a wartime or combat setting. It is a military persons duty to obey, that’s part of the job description, I’m not arguing that. I would say that 100% of military personell have the ability to question why they were given an order and why that order is the right reaction. The problem in a life and death situation is you and the people depending on your actions for survival might not appreciate a philosophical discussion on why they should or should not take on an arrowhead formation, you might be dead before the discussion is over. My question to you is, how does one military person acting like a drunken asshole facilitate an argument on how anti-intellectual, and how linear the thought process of the so called “military mind”? One has nothing to do with the other, and clearly you missed the mark on this one and insulted an entire professions collective intelligence, and morals by statements like this one:
“Of course, his anti-intellectualism and authoritarian personality come to the fore in times of war when the military’s rationale – violence – is given free rein. Without continual restraint from without, the military dogs of war are loosed in their full blood-lust to engage in pillage, rape and mass murder.”
Only an ingorameous of epic proportions would make that distinction of today’s modern “Canadian Military”. Perhaps you should reread your post, take a step back, put you chin between forefinger and thumb, furrow your brow and think really hard about the statement you made, and see if maybe, just maybe that was a stupid statement to make.
RRSPs
Thank you all for your kind thoughts and good wishes. Because of the volume of comments, my reply must needs be brief for each.
: Great Value (Sept. 12. 10:28AM) – GV writes that there is “Too much thinking and not enough basic common sense.” GV, does this mean that such “basic common sense” involves no “thinking” at all or just the right amount? Specify the distinction, GV, so that we are in no doubt. Also GV, I’m not sure of the mining analogy and its relevance to thinking philosophically. You speak about reinforcing “the safe areas with known science, things like braces and supports.” Just how does “known science” have relevance to thinking philosophically, GV. And what, exactly, are these “braces and supports” to which you refer? I’m puzzled GV. I need your help. Write back with your thoughts on this.
: HaliMike (11:36AM) – Since you directed your comment to no one in particular, I assume it was to me. You write, “Good on you for handling it like a pro.” Thanks HaliMike, I always do my best.
: Sodeypop (12:45AM) – You must not categorize people by occupation, Sodeypop. See Stephen Harper (Sept. 12, 8:01AM) who will set you straight.
: Sebastian (12:56AM) – I’m not sure what your post means, Sebastian. Ordinarily I find your posts quite sardonic and for that reason quite amusing, but I find the present one incomprehensible. Help me to understand it, Sebastian. I assume the post was directed to me but I could be wrong. It would help if you would
address your remarks to those you want to, um, address, Sebastian.
: Stephen Harper (3:16PM) – “Nothing bores me more than people who neglect the validity of statements made by anyone but themselves.” I couldn’t agree more Stephen. I couldn’t have said it better. It’s been one of my major messages to the commenters on this site but it seems my seed has fallen on stoney soil. Do you think that they will ever take notice?
“My opinion isn’t all that different than the other people on this forum, needless to say.” Once again Stephen, I couldn’t agree more but, and you must remember this Stephen, thinking philosophically is not a matter of consensus. In fact, Stephen, consensus invariably is the opposite of philosophical understanding, needless to say. Hold this concept in your mind, Stephen.
“My question to you is, how does one military person acting like a drunken asshole facilitate an argument on how anti-intellectual, and how linear the thought process of the so-called ‘military mind'”? I don’t know Stephen, principally because I didn’t understand what you meant. Well, give it a shot, how DOES the drunken asshole facilitate it? Beats me. In any case Stephen, you must struggle to reflect on the concept of the military mind itself and not its particular instantiations.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RRSP … question mark … ok … then…looool
*walks away*
RSVPs
: Donk (Sept 12, 8:07PM) – Isn’t that something? And the entire thread too! Donk, can you suggest any reasons for it? Write back soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hey, MM, if you’re going to quote me, at least quote me properly. If you cannot summon the memory to read and the write it down from memory, there is a shortcut you can use, just cut and paste the quote in question. I said “my opinion OF YOU….”, not just “my opinion”, and I can assure you that my opinion is quite different from time to time than most of the bitchers. It was a nice try though, if reading comprehension is a problem, I have a friend who is a university level English tutor, if you want her number let me know.
Ok, I’ll dumb it down for ya! What i disagree with about your post is:
What you said is, that a military person, because of the higherarchy structure and method of training, cannot help but act in this manner because of their engrained sense of entightlement.
“He demands (and gets) obeisance from his inferiors who, in authoritarian fashion, he views with a minimally-disguised contempt.”
“He regards those outside – the civilians – with a mixture of condescension bordering on contempt. He sees himself as their protector, the champion of the weak-kneed and craven who owe him at the very least total respect and, more properly, total reverence.”.
I don’t believe this to be true, I have served in the Canadian forces, and have many friends who still do, and in my experience, (thats right MM, I have experience in this field), I can say for certain that this attitude you accuse is not the status quo.
THE STRUCTURE & PROCESS OF CONSCIOUS AWARENESS
In my Last post (Sept. 13, 9:12AM) I asked Donk if she had any ideas as to why I continued to write “RRSPs” instead of “RSVPs” at the top of each of my replies to the various commenters. Sadly, she has not yet replied but she may be reflecting on the question and will post later. This gives Montrealman a chance to offer the benefit of his powers of analytical intelligence to resolve the dilemma which, as usual, involves philosophy or in the present case, philosophical psychology. It involves, in effect, the structure and process of conscious awareness which, in its turn, requires clarification as to just what that structure and process consist.
It may be best to start with an example. Take the concert pianist. He is fully conscious of the melody he is playing – his mind is directly upon the music itself – but he is not conscious in the same way of the position of his fingers on the keyboard. The concert pianist illustrates the two-fold structure of consciousness, what has been called “subsidiary” and “focal” awareness. He is focally aware of the music but only subsidiarily of the position of his fingers on the keyboard. However, this subsidiary-focal structure of consciousness is not limited to the concert pianist. In fact, the same structure is present in all acts of conscious awareness: we rely on one thing (the subsidiary component) while attending explicitly to the matter at hand (the focal component). Both parts of the structure must be present. There can be no focal awareness without its subsidiary component and, in the same way, there can be no purely subsidiary awareness in complete acts of conscious awareness (i.e., one must be aware of SOMETHING).
The process of consciousness awareness is implicit in its structure which is to say that it is not passive or inert but rather is “vectorial” or directed to its object. The pianist directs (or “attends from”) his subsidiary awareness of the position of his fingers on the keyboard to the melody itself. In addition, the process of this from-to awareness is irreversible. If the pianist were to direct his attention to the position of his fingers on the keyboard, it would paralyze his performance.
But how does this relate to my continuously writing “RRSPs” instead of “RSVPs” as the title of my replies to the commenters on this thread? In terms of the structure and process of from-to awareness, the title was in my subsidiary mode, the “from” in my “from-to” structure of conscious awareness which was focally directed at my replies to the commenters. Not only that, I re-inforced this subsidiary awareness and what might have been corrected at the beginning of the thread consequently persisted throughout.
So there we are. My mistake was a consequence of the from-to or subsidiary-focal structure and process of my conscious awareness. I was never focally aware of that “RRSP” and continued, mistakenly, to write it.
Hope Donk writes soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
SHITD – Haven’t you noticed? Sméagol’s making it up as he goes along, like so many of his other posts (remember Darwin?).
I bet his only experience with the military, is when he and his mother made sure that all the visiting Sailors got “blown ashore”.
“diametrically opposed to that of the philosopher” – Tell that to Anthony Powell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl von Clausewitz, Frederick the Great, Antoine-Henri Jomini, Liddell-Hart, Niccolo Machiavelli, Helmuth von Moltke, Sun Tzu, Mahan, Corbett, Douhet, Mitchell, and Mao Tse-tung.
annie, I know of your fondmess for ‘labels’, so I’ll give you one – Military philosophy = Stoicism (incomplete, because the Military mind is far deeper that a simple all encompassing label).
I suspect that Sméagol cannot fathom the true meaniong of Stoicism, because if someone told him to “suck it up”, he’d cry like a baby, and accuse them of being fascist.
Montremoleman, your comments on “linear thinking, and unquestioning obedience” – are wrong on so many levels and utterly laughable, that I’m not going to dignify them with a retort.
“the military dogs of war are loosed in their full blood-lust to engage in pillage, rape and mass murder” – An obvious perverted sexual fantasy, the only question is: In this scenario, does annie see itself as the perpetrator of these crimes, or as the wanton ‘victim’?
Could you imagine what would happen if the Military, Police, Firefighters, Emergency-room Doctors, etc., stopped to consider all the philosophical and moral ramifications of every action before acting….a lot of people would die. That’s why these things are thought out, long before, any action is required, but that’s far beyond the ken of Sméagol, the Silly Stoor.
I have to say…If the world were run by philosophers, there would be no war, there wouldn’t be much of anything really, but still…no war.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Sept. 13, 10:39AM) – Good morning Stephen. Good to hear from you again. You raise two points but, sadly, are mistaken in each case.
(a) The first relates to your claim that I misquoted you, that I failed to include “OF YOU” in my reference but I think you will admit that the omission did not distort the sense of your thought. In other words, Stephen, one naturally assumed that it was ME you were referring to and not, um, someone else. So thank you for your offer of the tutor Syephen, but I will not be needing him. (If it’s a “her,” then maybe.)
(b) In my initial post on “The Military Mind” (Sept. 10, 10:03AM) I gave what you in the military might call a “pre-emptive strike” in the first section, “Anti-Intellectualism.” My point was that actual service in the military was not only not required for an exploration of “The Military Mind” but might actually militate against it because the military mind does not, as a matter of course, concern itself with matters relating to, um, the military mind. You must try to hold that concept in your mind, Stephen.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Case in point for “making it up as he goes along”, now he’s as ‘talented’ as a concert pianist, friggin moron.
I hear ya Hugo, someone has a pretty high opinion of himself. Too bad the melodic connection between his ultimately superior mind and the keyboard can’t seem to synchronize with spelling, grammer, fact or common sense.
Of course the simple question is does anyone really give a rat’s ass about ANYTHING MM has to say. Really, what does he contribute to society. Idiots like him give a bad name to true philosophers.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Sept. 13, 6:25PM) – Stephen, your post was incoherent. What can you possibly mean by your statement to the effect that the connection between my “ultimately superior mind” – I agree with that part – and the melodic keyboard “can’t seem to synchronize with grammer (sic), fact or common sense.” Stephen, you must never take your lead from “The Turd.” He is without intellectual resources. Write back with your defence.
: Dim Bro Tim (6:45PM) – We’re going to hear it here first, gang. Dim Bro is going to distinguish Montrealman’s thoughts from those “true philosophers” to which he gives a “bad name.” Dim Bro, it’s not enough just to list some names. You’ve got to specify just how they are “true philosophers” and Montrealman falls short, that he is a phoney. Let’s see you go, Dim Bro. (Anyone taking bets? I’m giving 10-1 against. Any takers?)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“incoherent” – Only to you Sméagol, only to you. Poor little Stoor 🙁
“I’m giving 10-1 against.” – psst…dumbass, you’re not allowed to bet against yourself 😉
Oh, look everybody! montrealman finally learned the difference between an RRSP and an RSVP. Bravo! You’re a sharp one!
OB, you should have replied with, “How’s it feel to have your friend kicked out of the bar and you getting your ass handed to you by a bunch of camel jockies in Afghanistan?”
MontrealMan:
I’ve thought of two awards and a nominee for each one. The first is the Iron Sheik “Worse Than Michael Jackson” Award and the nominee is Sebastian. Another nominee is oldhand. Here’s a video to explain why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxUajYciIUE. Usually Sheik says people are fags and worse than Michael Jackson. Sebastian, oldhand and Ultimate Warrior are the nominees.
The second award is the Bleeding Cunt Award. It’s like a Bleeding Heart Medal but instead of actually being a good person, the recipient of this award is just a self-righteous cunt who menstruates all over the place instead. The nominee is me0w.
no way mr. fat, she rawks, bitch
RSVPs
: Sunbiz (Sept 13, 8:06PM) – Read my “The Structure & Process of Conscious Awareness” to yourself again Sunbiz. (Try not to move your lips.) Have you ever come across anything so philosophically profound on this site or, for that matter, on any other? I know that you might be confused Sunbiz. The reason is – are you sitting down? – that it contains THOUGHT! Of course Sunbiz, for you, this is an alien concept. To be honest Sunbiz, you don’t sound too sharp. In fact, Sunbiz, I would say you border on the imbecilic. (Check the spelling on that one, Sunbiz. Also, did you notice that I left out the period behind “Sept”? Get on that, Sunbiz.)
: Donairious (9:00PM) – Glad to see that you are still keeping The Golden Douche Awards Night in mind, Donnairious. Excellent selections, I must say: Sebastian for “The Iron Sheik” and meOw for “The Bleeding Cunt.” Perhaps, for The Golden Douche Awards Night ceremonies, you might think of ghosting their “acceptance” speeches which you might want to deliver from the podium. I can cue you. Don’t pull any punches, Donairious. We’ll stay in touch.
: Paingirl (10:22PM) – Are you disputing Donarious’ selections for the Golden Douche Awards? For “The Iron Sheik” or “The Bleeding Cunt” or both? Of course, nominations can be contested by third parties, excluding the nominees themselves of course, but only on the basis of written arguments. Try to base your defence on evidence rather than on simple feelings, Paingirl. Get to work now.
What happened to Dim Bro Tim? What does that “real philosopher” look like, Dim Bro? Do I win my bet?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Defense??? I don’t think I need a defense, I still haven’t seen a coherent defense of your first post. Oh right, there is no defense for being dead wrong (in regards to your first post, I don’t want you to have to assume anything, I know it confuses you). I’ll be waiting MM, although I’m not expecting much.
Excuse me!!!??? Montremoleman & thought? LOLZ – that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever herd one.
I mean what kind of (ahem) intellectual, fabricates facts, attaches authority to lend credibility, and post an obviously ignorant opinion without doing even the most basic research? None that I know of, not a real one anyway.
But then again, it’s Sméagol…
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xlVE8iwnxBs/Sd1o…
“never take your lead from “The Turd” – HaHaHa, I’m leading the charge against an undefended village of idiots (population of 1), and you’re the Mayor.
On a serious note 😉 – Sméagol, what’s a song with good lyrics, that you like? You know that I’m going to rip it apart, so try to give it some (lol), thought.
“I mean what kind of (ahem) intellectual, fabricates facts, attaches authority to lend credibility, and post an obviously ignorant opinion without doing even the most basic research?”
Ummmm – a tenured one?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C741fjvFXFU/TV6n…
LOLZ Ivan, good one 🙂
Have you ever wondered why annie posts on LTWWB, instead of some philosophy forum?
Probably been banned from every site in North America, either that or he was laughed off.
I’m thinking that his housekeeper has locked out all the good japanese porn sites and the whippets have learned to fight back. We’re his only remaining outlet.
Dear Mr. montrealman,
You’re not getting any, are you. No RRSP necessary. I’m maxed out for the year.
MM it’s ok. http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/upl…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?…
Hahaha
Oh, and short, bald & tiny pee pee.
ofcourse, he doesn’t know what an rrsp is, in montreal is it a QRSP, non?
“I mean what kind of (ahem) intellectual, fabricates facts, attaches authority to lend credibility, and post an obviously ignorant opinion without doing even the most basic research?”
Someone that uses a french ‘RSVP’ and signs with a british ‘Cheerios!’, and to make it worse, he uses ‘RRSP’
MontrealMan:
I’m glad you are satisfied with the nominees. The speech-ghosting and delivery are both things I can do also. For sebastian’s I can get a bald cap and speak with a lisp while hitting on every male I see. For me0w’s I can just use a lot of words taken from a dictionary or thesaurus that will make me look/sound more intelligent while looking at myself in a hand mirror.
Any idea on a date and venue for The Golden Douche Awards? I would just like to be prepared.
RRSPs
Thank you all once again for your kind thoughts. It’s raining at the moment in Montreal but with luck the system will soon clear out and move on to Halifax.
The mailbag is full so we must get to work.
: Stephen Harper (Sept. 14, 10:14AM) – A defence of my first post? But why, Stephen, since there were no successful (or even coherent) critiques of it in the first place? I must say, Stephen, that I was confused but only by your parenthetical statement which I found – wait for it – also incoherent. Write back when you get work, Stephen.
: Scrotum (11:02AM & 12:36PM) – You must never retail The Turd, Scrotum. He is without intellectual respources. I leave the Japanese porn to you but can say I can say that the whippets, as always, give me their unconditional support.
: Snubiz (4:16PM & 4:36PM) – Are you sure that’s not “Sunbiz?” Snubiz? Anyway, you do sound maxed out but I bet it didn’t take much. A “pee-pee” Snubiz? Can’t you do better than that?
: Donk (4:21PM) – You’re right there Donk, haters are gonna hate. Thank you for your support.
: Great Value (5:02PM & 5:07PM) – GV, it sounds like you’re maxed out too. Did it take five mnutes to come up with your second post? What does that tell you, GV? I know what it tells me. Write when you get work, GV.
Donairious (9:50PM) – It sounds good Donairious. At the moment the Awards Ceremony requires scripting and there are some technical details to work out. It’s pretty exciting.
The way I see it, you can intro your nominees – you can still nominate more of course – and I can intro mine. Then the MC – as yet unscripted but I have an idea – can open the envelope after their introductory remarks with the winner’s name. I can ventriloquize the winner’s acceptance speech. No problem there.
But I’m not sure how we both can be presenters on the same thread at the same time. It would require split-second timing – switching from Donairious to Montrealman – and I’m not sure if this can be done. Let me know if you have any ideas on that.
If you have a separate e-mail address we can converse out of sight of the rabble. In any case, it’s still early days. I see it upcoming in a month or two, so there’s no rush.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RUN ANNIE….run,run,run =O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU2faSpk1Rs
Sorry MM, you will have to elaborate, I’m not sure what you are referring to. You are wrong, There are at least three posters who rebutted your first post. Still haven’t seen a coherent defense from you yet. Of course I really didn’t expect much, maybe you could give some footnoted quotes as proof of your assessment. Sorry but nothing less will do, the burden of proof is on you. Gee whizzz I sure hope to hear back real soon buddy, of course there will be no defense, you are incapable of defending something that is wrong, good luck though.
Cheerio
Cannot wait for the awards show, MontrealMan! I wonder if it’s possible to book Iron Sheik as a guest presenter for sebastian’s award.
RSVPs
Go mornig from Montreal. A bit cool this morning – only 7 degrees – but it will rise to 14 by this afternoon. Sunny, though.
: Stephen Harper (Sept. 15, 1:09PM) – “I am not sure what you are referring to. You are wrong.” Read that over again, Stephen. Do you detect traces of a failure of logic?
Your statement in parentheses reads: “In regards to your first post, I don’t want you to have to assume anything, I know it confuses you.” It sure does, Stephen. Assume what? Struggle for clarity in your posts, Stephen. Use Montrealman as your model.
“There are at least three posters who rebutted your first post.” News to me, Stephen. Choose the “best” one Stephen, give the poster’s name, date and time,
and then watch the Master (i.e., me) at work. Take your time, Stepen. Reflect on your choice.
: Donairious (7:45PM) – I thought Sebastian WAS “The Iron Shei” and then how could he be his own presenter? It doesn’t scan, Denairious. I think it’s probably best if I handled the Awards solo, Donairious. There are too many complications for a combined effort on a site like this. In fact the Awards are shaping up very nicely in my mind – that national treasure – as I write. But thanks for your co-operative spirit, Donairious. I appreciated it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Gee Sméagol, it’s been 4 days, can’t think of a song with good lyrics?
That means one of two things, either Montremoleman; is unable to appreciate/comprehend music, or, he feels that there are no good songs with lyrics. Either way annie, the problem is you, and not the rest of th world.
And here’s Montremoleman’s “national treasure” –
http://www.pcpcgames.com/wp-content/upload…
No no no! The Iron Sheik is a former pro wrestler who often refers to people as being “fags” who are “worse than Michael Jackson”. Sebastian could never be someone as cool as Sheik.
If Sheik were the presenter, seb would say something snide and get smacked across the face and put in the Camel Clutch, which would humble him.
RSVPs
: Donairius (Sept. 18, 8:48PM) – “The Iron Sheik” was a former pro wrestler? I thought the reference was to Sebastian’s, um, “staying power” but then I never followed wrestling. Very Halifax Underclass, Donairious. You don’t happen to bowl, do you?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hey Sméagol, or maybe Otto 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI
hey, fuck you….
what’s wrong with bowling???
RSPs
: zZz (Sept. 19, 10:22AM) – If you have to ask, you’ll never know.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSTPs:
I agree. Bowling is for assholes.
Weetabix!
SpringGardenRoadMan
* (“reply soon, toilet paper”)
wow, so aside from not answering all the condescending, raving bullshit back and forth….
you can’t even answer a simple, direct question.
Richard Nixon used to bowl
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/archive…
and he was a fine example……
ok, bad choice.
This is a little disappointing…
http://www.city94fm.com/connect/Portals/5/…
cause I KNOW Bill Murray isn’t an asshole… or michael jordan….
but the rest surely are.
Hell, something tells me Gaga tried teabagging a couple balls before she knew what she signed up for.
RSVPs
: Wheeliep (Sept. 19, 12:25PM) – Hey SPGMan, glad to have you aboard! Check out my “RSVP.” Pretty good, eh? The problem is that my keys stick replying to these old threads. Peck, peck, peck all the time. Do you think Bird would accept it as a Bitch? Later, toilet paper.
: zZz (1:24PM) – Case proven. You will never know, zZz. So you KNOW Michael Jordan isn’t an asshole? Are you sure about that? And Lady Gaga? Get serious zZz.
You’re talking to a superior mind.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“You’re talking to a superior mind.” – He who claims superiority, by the very nature of the claim forfeits it. Real, natural superiority comes without the claiming. – Gandhi
Superior, my ass, you can’t even solve a kids puzzle.
RRSPs
: The Turd (Sept 19, 5:38PM) – Can you produce an exact – yes, an exact – citation for the Gandhi reference or is it, like all of your references, fatuous and without foundation?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Charles Darwin and The Beagle. Ring a bell?
http://www.kuukusblog.com/wp-content/uploa…
SUPERIORITY AND INFERIORITY
http://www.mkgandhi.org/encyclopedia/s.htm
http://joharnews.com/content_images/75933d…
: zZz (1:24PM) – Case proven. You will never know, zZz. So you KNOW Michael Jordan isn’t an asshole? Are you sure about that? And Lady Gaga? Get serious zZz.
You’re talking to a superior mind.
Heh heh heh. You show ’em, MM!
——-
The Turd (Sept 19, 5:38PM) – Can you produce an exact – yes, an exact – citation for the Gandhi reference
——-
“The problem with using citations from the internet is you can never prove their veracity”
– Abraham Lincoln
RSVPs
: The Turd (Sept. 19, 8:30PM) – Still waiting for that exact citation, Turd. Show us you have at least some detectable neurological activity. I understand, given the size of your ego, how bitter for you it must be to encounter someone who is clearly your superior in every respect, but you must deal with it. I’ll be here for you, of course, if you require help.
: Donairious (10:33PM) – You’ve got to hold their feet to the fire, Denairious. You’ve got to listen to them holler.
: Wheeliep (Sept. 20, 12:46AM) – Did Lincoln actually say that, Wheeliep? Can you give an exact citation?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Lincoln was indeed THAT good….
just like those bible thumpers that claim their book is against internet pornography.
if they knew about the internet, why the hell did it take them so long to develop it???
and I need not quibble with you montreal douche… I find you dry and forgettable.
likely why I only read a scant few of your douche-ridden posts of douchedom.
If they were any more douchey, you’d need a second douchey poster to out-douche you just to show you aren’t the king of all douches.
douche.
(wow, the muscle memory of typing that out was exquisitely easy)
🙂
http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/…
“your superior in every respect” – “Ooohh!!!”, says the crowd 🙂
That sounds like a challenge, I accept. As the one being challenged, I get to pick the subject.
Revelistic Physics – You go first.
C’mon Hugo, you know MM is a legend in his own mind.
RSVPs
Just reviewing some old threads to see if anyone needs spanking. A couple do…
: zZz (Sept. 20, 11:29AM) – “Just like those bible thumpers etc., etc.” Read that sentence again to yourself, zZz. You may even move your lips, if you like. Finished? Now, zZz, does it make even a scintilla of sense to you? Me either.
“Dry and forgettable?” Is that why you go for the douche, zZz? Need a little irrigation?
: The Turd (11:59AM) – ?; (3:22PM) – “Revelistic” physics? Are you sure about your terminology, Turd? Let’s start there.
: Bro Tim (3:55PM) – That’s very good, Dim Bro. May I borrow it?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
:
lol, ya got me, annie. Gotta be careful about the autospelling.
Relativistic physics – How does speed affect gravity? Does mass increase with speed, or just seem to?
RSVPs
: The Turd (Sept. 21,6:2PM) – The answer to both questions is, “Yes.” Study your Einstein. Now go away.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“The answer to both questions is, “Yes.” ” – Okey Dokey 😉
Nice try…well, no it wasn’t, was it.
How does speed affect gravity? – “Yes”
Does mass increase with speed, or just seem to? – “Yes”
Not exactly the intellectual answers that I was expecting.
Care to try again?
Here’s a hint, think of gravity as a wave, and how velocity affects waves.
RSVPs
: The Turd (Sept. 21, 8:40PM) – “Think of gravity as a wave, and how velocity affects waves.” Sorry, Turd, but I have better things to think about. I was going to suggest a few of those “better things” but then I remembered that you don’t think at all – you simply have primitive “mind pictures.” This is not “thinking,” Turd, at least in any mature manner. Go and draw a picture of your wave on a handy cave wall.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman: “douchey douchers douche daily to douche out their douche for douchey reasons…. blah blah douche blah….”
you’re completely segregated from me from this point on.
I will not read your posts… not even the scant few short ones.
you may reply all you like though I assure you, you will receive no response.
just go back to what you love to do in your spare time…
http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures…
Giving up so soon, Sméagol? Too hard? Concept beyond your limited intellect?Can’t grasp the basics? Does it make your (ahem) brain hurt? Hiding your ignorance?
“mind pictures” = Visualization. Meh, you can’t visualize, either eh?
Chortle, That’s how Einstein came up with, the Theory of Relativity. He imagined what it would be like to ride on a beam of light.
So, what’s your “mature manner” of thinking, that’s so superior to Einstein’s “mind pictures”?
“I have better things to think about” – I’m sure you do Sméagol, I’m sure you do. While you’re thinking on the knowledge of knowing the reasoning of a phollyosopher’s mind, I’ll be pondering the life of stars.
“Go and draw a picture of your wave on a handy cave wall.”
Don’t mind if I do 🙂
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images…
RVPs
: zZz (Sept. 22, 10:47AM) – “You’re completely segregated from me from this point on.”
We’ll have no racism on this site, zZz, if you don’t mind.
: The Turd (12:07PM) – I think you should “ride a beam of light” right off this site.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Frig, a golden opportunity like that and you blew it. I give you a great big fat…
http://asset-server.libsyn.com/item/126767…
..and you do nothing with it, absolutely nothing. Le Sigh.
I bet when I said “think of gravity as a wave”, you thought…
http://www.arborcollective.com/wp-content/…
Guess that means that, quantum particle energy, is out of the question eh?
All this talk of the military mind, made me think of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4
RSVPs
: The Turd (Sept. 22, 9:36PM) – You must seek out psychological assistance.
: Balls (Sept. 23, 1:19AM) – Hello Balls! Charlie got it right! I didn’t realize that you were still out there keeping an eye on things. It’s time to appear outside the stage curtain, Balls, and give the villians a piece of your mind! Kick some ass, Balls! Yeah!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!