US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[JustARandomPanda]

This is about the fundmentals of the country - remember people freakin out when Obama declared he was going to fundamentally transform the country? The fundamentals were about all we had left, were they adhered to - at least the notion was still in existence and somewhat revered, even if it was lip service from half the folks. Running towards the wrong end zone is what Obama and the progressives are after. (Yes I'm saying team Progressive and team America are not playing on the same team.)

 

Disagree with you here JB. I didn't vote for Obama. But neither did I vote for Romney. All the things you said Romney would *not* have done had he been elected I didn't buy for one single minute. Also, like The Lerner I admit I do not like the fact that the Religious Right are pretty much making the Republicans dance to their Xtian Fundie tune. As if only Fundie Protestant Christians are the only people on the planet who understand and act with high virtue, ethics and morals.

 

I think the reasoning has much less to do with population density than "when the people discover they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury..."

 

That puts concerns like mine (which was the deciding factor in how I voted) totally in the backseat. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are NOT necessarily progressives but whom - like me - do not like the fact that the Republicans have been captured by the Fundie Christians and Neocon Hawks and very likely to fill lots of powerful positions in the gov with people from those 2 factions. And that was even more important and damaging to the rights of the Individual vs. the Collective in the long run than the fiscal problems this country faces. But to someone who thinks fiscal problems trumps social problems they'd conclude that Dems or people like me were really "voting themselves the treasury". Heaven forbid there be Dems or 3rd party people who think big social problems trump even big fiscal problems and decide those were the far more insidious (and longer term) damaging trends to the nation and so vote in the manner they think better addresses those longer term/deeper threats. No...that couldn't be a legitimate possibility...the real truth is they're helping themselves to the Treasury.

 

It's really kind of sad. Back in my 20s - when I still voted for one of the major parties - I actually liked the Republicans. But the more they danced to the tune of the Christian Right and Neocons the less and less I liked them. Christian Fundies are in favor of the Individual only if it means you worship and act their approved way. If you don't act the way they define "following Jesus" they are NOT in favor of the rights of the Individual vs. the Collective like philosophers like John Locke espoused (especially if said Collective is their version Jesus-luvin-selves) since (their version) Jesus trumps individuals every time in their worldview.

 

Neocons have yet to meet a "military intervention" or "military solution" they didn't like. Even though such means they significantly contribute to increasing the country's in-debtedness to sky-high proportions.

 

Sadly that means the Republican Party - which used to (imo) adhere to 18th century Liberal Ideas better than Democrats in many instances - has itself become every bit as "Collective-luvin" as the people they condemn. They just like handing out the pork to different kinds of Collectives than the Dems but Collectives getting their share of pork it still remains. And Romney would not have changed that in the least. He'd simply re-direct which kinds of Collectives (aka factions/special interests) get the pork.

 

He would've done lotsa nitpicking here and there to look like he was "solving things" but real solutions that honored John Locke's ideals would've remained out of his playbook. He's not a "Locke-ian" anymore than is Obama.

Edited November 17, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Brian]

Can someone tell me what level 2 learning is?

 

Unless Seeker simply means "university level" in-depth learning?

 

Sorry! Should have been more explicit, I suppose. I'm thinking of Gregory Bateson's framework for levels of learning, first put forth in the early '60s. (In "Logical Categories of Learning & Communication," I think...) Basically, he attempted a construct on the premise that learning is not exactly "of the mind" (my phrase) but that people are largely hard-wired for the "type" of learning they are prepared for. Nothing pejorative intended and little that can be done to modify it after childhood.

 

Learning 0 is "specificity of response" -- the neural net locked into a single response to a given situation or stimulus.

 

Learning 1 is "change in specificity of response" -- in which the thinker can make adjustments to response based on feedback, but limited to a given set of alternatives (think "error correction").

 

Learning 2 is "change in the process of Learning 1" -- basically the ability to modify the members of the set of alternatives or, linguistically, changing the punctuation applied to a set of experiences. LII is sometimes referred to as "learning to learn" and is relatively rare in common experience but maybe 50/50 among "highly educated folks," I'd guess (although I personally believe most people can make this leap once in a while). It is important to note that education doesn't produce L2 learning so much as L2 learners tend to enjoy learning and do it for fun, hence the increased ratio in that population...

 

Learning 3 is "change in the process of Learning 2" -- here, the entire set of alternatives can be swapped out for a completely different set based on some change in context. A rarity "in nature" but sometimes brought on by intensive therapy or by traumatic experiences (think "life-changing moments." People "forced" into LII often experience psychotic breaks.

 

Learning 4 would be "change in the process of Learning 3" -- the idea here that the system of sets of alternatives addressed in is swapped out for another system of sets of alternatives. Bateson thought it was beyond human experience (and, honestly, I have trouble getting my head around the concept).

 

The levels sort of stack or nest, in a manner of speaking, such that an L0 learner can learn a reaction to a stimulus but an L1 learner can not only learn a reaction but can learn to change that reaction. An L2 learner can learn responses, alter responses based on experience or context, AND introduce new options on the fly. And so on...

 

I find the framework a useful tool for setting expectations and/or "tone" in interactions with others. For instance, my L0 TV remote is very different from my occasionally-L1 hound-dog or my solidly L2 boss.

Edited November 17, 2012 by A Seeker

[Aetherous]

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/sen_bernie_sanders_rages_social_security_20121117/

[Owledge]

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny

Start reading and if it's captivating to you, continue. It's like a mindboggling geopolitical thriller - non-fiction.