Wednesday, May 16, 2007
De Mayor is a Pandering Phony
How long will Guiliani live off the his myths of himeself during 9/11. He was a Mr. Cameo worse than Bill Clinton's 'I feel your pain". Too bad he was so negligent in preparing the possible emergency response after the '93 attempt on the Twin Towers. The only post-9/11 thinking he has is marketing opportunism.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sentimentalism & Romanticism
Sentimentalism & Romanticism
Freedom is having options of economic flexibility
Freedom is having options of economic flexibility
I came to the answer of what or how I would've lived my life differently. It wasn't chronologically possible, but it is in that parallel universe of scenarios. I was what I was. If it could have been different, I would have established a relationship with my mother as my business agent for investing my money in equities and businesses while in college and in the Army.
Before I continue along that line, let me backup and review where I was historically. Freedom was an emotional aesthetic of expression. Just being in a position to be expressive about the concerns of my soul had been a primary priority for me. There were no intended practical supports for this angst. The economics I lived were to support the life style. The life style was to "find MY voice and KNOW myself". The jobs I had in high school and college were to provide the trappings and the short-range operational wherewithal to be that "expression of the Self".
The material privileges and affectations of money I spurned. Those things and the status they brought were unimportant to me. Since privilege and affectations were the end-game most promoted by my temporal and social environment I viewed as preening and posturing, there was no ambition in that direction. Since that direction seemed to be the core motivator for my mother, father, and people of their generation-my potential mentors-I had an estrangement from the people who'd have been operationally valuable to me.
I lived in romanticism and sentimentality. Romanticism was the architecture of my perspective. Sentimentalism was operational mode. I had my ideals of what I wanted to be, existentially. I surrounded myself with ideas and people that nourished those visions. Romance, per se, was the template for all the other activities that were the derivative analogies of these romantic notions. If romance was defined as possessing, collaborating, partnering, mutual using or abusing, then the logic that ran that relationship became the underlying worldview for my other non-intimate and business relationships. Whatever was the means for approaching my intimate satisfaction became the justifying rubric for my public satisfaction. Romance as the iconic ideal of self-fulfillment was, perversely, the obfuscator for obtaining those desires and ideals. The heart's longings became the justification for the logic of the operation, instead of a guide post or road sign. To be in the moment was more important than the preparation for the moment. What was conceivable for that preparation was distorted by bias to other options possible. The bias was in the perception given to the means offered by the elder mentors. I associated their suggestions of the means with being literal extensions of their individual outlook and life, rather than being general metaphors with which I could design my own adaptations. Being unpracticed in the means suggested and being preoccupied with my temporary licence for emotional freedom delayed comprehension of what has been the underlying problem of my existence.
Being in college, facing the draft, being in the military were the excuses and rationale for not being interested in exploration, let alone involvement in seeking sustainable economic independence. In fact, the activities of those situations-activities of romantic sentimentalism-preempted thought beyond the romantic sentimentalistic life style. This was the sentimentalist aspect of my myopia. The preference and intensity given to the ideas, the people, and-lesser-the activities had more to do with emotions than practicality. What practicality used was to effect the short-term means, rather than a less emotion driven long-view perspective. The perspective was as emotion driven as it was because of the lack of other experiences that would have provided options for my emotional fulfillment: unchangeable earlier history.
Romantic-sentimentalism is a frivolous affectation outside of the operational pursuit for the economic independence that would sustain that lifestyle. I say this as a minimalist. Function over style is my credo. I would not and do not seek the trappings of luxury and ostentatious convenience that is idolized for the culture by the mass media. I can say, self-servingly-now, that I was not so much into appearance as far as clothes and external trappings, as I was in my posturing for my mental perspective. The old saying and derision, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" would be applicable to me. I was able to avoid the indictment of that statement by my former references to not considering as important the material and aesthetic trappings of wealth as the definer of what I was about. The more valid indictment is, 'if you're so smart, why aren't you financially independent?'.
Financial independence and wealth are not necessarily the same thing. A minimalist, ascetic life style can have financial independence without the baubles, bling, and notoriety of wealth.
The former 'bling', 'baubles', and 'notoriety' mentioned are a part of the affectations of neuroses that becomes the snare for people defining their ego-freedom. Freedom is not the license for expressional indulgence. Freedom is having the operational options to maintain and sustain your interests. The availability of products for emotional or oral consumption are not the measure of one's wealth. They are the incidental describers of one's personality.
Personality, as the function of self-indulgence, is a vanity of a deluded ego. It is a superfluous artifact. The freedom to act is not, primarily, the right for emotional esteem, as it is the consequence of financial operations. There are ethical and moral imperatives that are the mentors and limiters to one's plans, as well as being the definer of the purpose for your efforts. Ethics and morals are targets of corruption and temptation without the economic means to give you the paths to lead you 'not in temptation, but to deliver (you) from evil'.
The economic means should be directed for you to be the boss and timekeeper for your paycheck. Whatever ethical and legal, modest, entrepreneurial activities you can do as the basis for giving yourself the time to be 'the boss' of your circumstances, however humble, should be the emotional angst of those seeking to have 'the expression of their soul'.
Harper
South Omaha
mhh_jr@msn.comPrivateerofPolemics@excite.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/polemicistmailboxDonations: mhh_jr@msn.com at www.Paypal.com
Before I continue along that line, let me backup and review where I was historically. Freedom was an emotional aesthetic of expression. Just being in a position to be expressive about the concerns of my soul had been a primary priority for me. There were no intended practical supports for this angst. The economics I lived were to support the life style. The life style was to "find MY voice and KNOW myself". The jobs I had in high school and college were to provide the trappings and the short-range operational wherewithal to be that "expression of the Self".
The material privileges and affectations of money I spurned. Those things and the status they brought were unimportant to me. Since privilege and affectations were the end-game most promoted by my temporal and social environment I viewed as preening and posturing, there was no ambition in that direction. Since that direction seemed to be the core motivator for my mother, father, and people of their generation-my potential mentors-I had an estrangement from the people who'd have been operationally valuable to me.
I lived in romanticism and sentimentality. Romanticism was the architecture of my perspective. Sentimentalism was operational mode. I had my ideals of what I wanted to be, existentially. I surrounded myself with ideas and people that nourished those visions. Romance, per se, was the template for all the other activities that were the derivative analogies of these romantic notions. If romance was defined as possessing, collaborating, partnering, mutual using or abusing, then the logic that ran that relationship became the underlying worldview for my other non-intimate and business relationships. Whatever was the means for approaching my intimate satisfaction became the justifying rubric for my public satisfaction. Romance as the iconic ideal of self-fulfillment was, perversely, the obfuscator for obtaining those desires and ideals. The heart's longings became the justification for the logic of the operation, instead of a guide post or road sign. To be in the moment was more important than the preparation for the moment. What was conceivable for that preparation was distorted by bias to other options possible. The bias was in the perception given to the means offered by the elder mentors. I associated their suggestions of the means with being literal extensions of their individual outlook and life, rather than being general metaphors with which I could design my own adaptations. Being unpracticed in the means suggested and being preoccupied with my temporary licence for emotional freedom delayed comprehension of what has been the underlying problem of my existence.
Being in college, facing the draft, being in the military were the excuses and rationale for not being interested in exploration, let alone involvement in seeking sustainable economic independence. In fact, the activities of those situations-activities of romantic sentimentalism-preempted thought beyond the romantic sentimentalistic life style. This was the sentimentalist aspect of my myopia. The preference and intensity given to the ideas, the people, and-lesser-the activities had more to do with emotions than practicality. What practicality used was to effect the short-term means, rather than a less emotion driven long-view perspective. The perspective was as emotion driven as it was because of the lack of other experiences that would have provided options for my emotional fulfillment: unchangeable earlier history.
Romantic-sentimentalism is a frivolous affectation outside of the operational pursuit for the economic independence that would sustain that lifestyle. I say this as a minimalist. Function over style is my credo. I would not and do not seek the trappings of luxury and ostentatious convenience that is idolized for the culture by the mass media. I can say, self-servingly-now, that I was not so much into appearance as far as clothes and external trappings, as I was in my posturing for my mental perspective. The old saying and derision, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" would be applicable to me. I was able to avoid the indictment of that statement by my former references to not considering as important the material and aesthetic trappings of wealth as the definer of what I was about. The more valid indictment is, 'if you're so smart, why aren't you financially independent?'.
Financial independence and wealth are not necessarily the same thing. A minimalist, ascetic life style can have financial independence without the baubles, bling, and notoriety of wealth.
The former 'bling', 'baubles', and 'notoriety' mentioned are a part of the affectations of neuroses that becomes the snare for people defining their ego-freedom. Freedom is not the license for expressional indulgence. Freedom is having the operational options to maintain and sustain your interests. The availability of products for emotional or oral consumption are not the measure of one's wealth. They are the incidental describers of one's personality.
Personality, as the function of self-indulgence, is a vanity of a deluded ego. It is a superfluous artifact. The freedom to act is not, primarily, the right for emotional esteem, as it is the consequence of financial operations. There are ethical and moral imperatives that are the mentors and limiters to one's plans, as well as being the definer of the purpose for your efforts. Ethics and morals are targets of corruption and temptation without the economic means to give you the paths to lead you 'not in temptation, but to deliver (you) from evil'.
The economic means should be directed for you to be the boss and timekeeper for your paycheck. Whatever ethical and legal, modest, entrepreneurial activities you can do as the basis for giving yourself the time to be 'the boss' of your circumstances, however humble, should be the emotional angst of those seeking to have 'the expression of their soul'.
Harper
South Omaha
mhh_jr@msn.comPrivateerofPolemics@excite.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/polemicistmailboxDonations: mhh_jr@msn.com at www.Paypal.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
