Letters to the Editor
logicalresponse
Published Letters: 168 Editor's Choice: 19
-
No, the real reason is the press
[Read the article: Whose fault is the Clinton-Obama stalemate?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The difference between these two candidates is what they say is the difference. Obama says he can change the way things are done in Washington, and Clinton says she has the experience to get things done the way they are done in Washington. There have been over 20 debates, and no question like these has been asked:
To Clinton: You say you have experience to get things done in Washington. Exactly what is your strategy for getting your adenda passed and how can we know it will succeed -- I want details?
To Obama: You say you are going to change the way things are done in Washington. Exactly what are you going to do away with and what are you going to replace it with -- I want details?
These questions should have then been followed up to make the candidates answer them. Then we'd know who is better.
-
but is it bad advice?
[Read the article: Karl Rove: Honest political genius]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thing is that if Obama had not started attacking Clinton back in 2007, he would never have brought down her lead. Now that he has the lead, he may very well want to start building up his rhetoric again. The two may seem contradictory, but they are given within the context of different times.
To me the real question is why would Rove even give the advice. It is certainly not because he thinks Obama will take it. Although the advice itself is not necessarily bad -- hell other people have been saying the same thing -- the significant puzzle is why he gives it. The answer must lie in how he expects Republicans to react to him saying it. It is too early to know what he is up to, but we'll know some day.
-
Wilber
[Read the article: You are the river: An interview with Ken Wilber]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have read most of Wilbur’s stuff up through about five years ago. While there are many who are simply not interested in what he has to say, there are a few things about him that anyone open to his ideas may be interested in knowing.
One is that his distinction between mythological religion and spirituality is one that is commented on by many of today’s popular atheists. Their books frequently point out that they are critical of mythological religion and not opposed to spiritual experience (or at least are open to the possibility), although when they actually get into their criticisms, it is clear that they do not really buy the spiritual stuff either. Nonetheless, they cannot be so sure of disproving it that they criticize it without hesitation.
Wilbur’s overall ideas do not really come though in this interview, and some of the critical comments simply do not apply.
He is extremely well read and he really works hard at his books, at least the ones I have read. He does tend to repeat a lot from book to book and that can be irritating like when you get a new CD and half the songs are just remakes. He has said he does that because the books build on prior work and he has to give the background. He got enough complaints that he now says he is not going to do that.
His more recent work is not all that good. He wrote a fiction piece that was horrendous.
He is very polemical sometimes devoting huge endnotes to arguments with someone who has criticized his work.
His hierarchy includes the pre-rational, the rational, and the trans-rational among a lot of other stuff, but that very description is extremely rational. This is a problem with his work. He says there is the trans-rational level, but I have never read him addressing the fact that from that level, the whole rational system he has developed may have no more validity than the pre-rational level has to the rational level.
He calls his system integral, but it really is not. It is comprehensive, because whenever he comes across some problem, he introduces some idea to expand his ideas. For example he has this pre to trans progression, but then was faced with the fact that people have reported mystical experiences outside any permanent level. So he had to introduce peak experiences that are sort of off to the side of his main chain of levels.
Over all I would recommend his work. Frankly, the earlier the work (going back about 30 to 40 years) the better I like it.