Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[TonyM.]

No anti semite here my friend. Anti illuminatti. The Rothschilds are not even jewish. They are hofjuden. People that assume jewish names so that the jews will take the heat for their despicable behavior.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nonsense. And who is Turtle Island occupied by exactly? Lemme guess...

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is part, but not the only part or even the greater part. The scientist who has no capacity for violence, but invents the antibiotics for our diseases does just as much for our society as the police officer. However, I feel that this article places an emphasis on the Sheepdog's/Police Officer's/Soldiers input on society. The disease, in essence, is also the Wolf. And I think that I'm giving a perfect example of the oversimplication that I talking about. We all wear many hats.

The Scientist is more MORAL, based on Pirsig's metaphysics of quality, because it serves Intellectual Quality, whereas sheepdogs operate as a defender of Social Quality against Biological Quality (crime). Scientists aren't sheepdogs because sheepdogs are servants. Scientists would be better equated with the shepherd, or as purely human.

The sheepdog is given greater emphasis in this article, as it is written TOO sheepdogs, that is why the emphasis. Col. Grossman has spent his life studying the roles of soldiers and sheepdogs, and he is outlining the duties and responsibilities of operating on that level. Sheepdogs are important, because without them society could not exist.

Scientists operate at a whole different level, above that Social/Biological conflict realm. So far above it, in fact, that they are hard pressed to believe it exists, detached as they are from the whole concept.

Do you have a link for this so I can refresh my memory? I'm going to be changing diapers any minute so I won't be able to respond to your question with any sort of haste without it.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. I hope Robert chimes back in. He really knows way more then I on this subject and I think could contribute greatly.

upnorthkyosa

Certainly. This would be a good start http://www.typelogic.com/ along with this http://keirsey.com/ You can take the test that determines which of the 4 archetypes and 16 sub-types represent your personality. Again, these are just representations that explain some aspects of the human experience. There is some real validity to these types and archetypes, though there are some who disagree. Check in to yourself.

In the name of full disclosure, my personality type is an ENTP.

Let me know what you find out.

 

[TonyM.]

Do your own homework McRobertson. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

So fine; did a quick Internet search. "Hofjuden," as much as I can see through the blizzard of loony fascism and fundamentalism, refers either to, a) a certain segment of European Jews, who considered themselves, "courrtly," in contradistinction to the garden-variety sort; b) the secret conspiracy of Jesuits and others who took Jewish names, like, "Greenspan," and who Run Everything From The Vatican.

So who've you got the problem with? Catholics, or Jewish folks?

 

[Tgace]

Thread Drift!!!!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fair enough!!!

I guess drifted or dead are the options....

However, I will note that people who belive in secret conspiracy theories tend to think that the secretives ones are being sheepdogs, for better or for worse...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Fair enough!!!

I guess drifted or dead are the options....

However, I will note that people who belive in secret conspiracy theories tend to think that the secretives ones are being sheepdogs, for better or for worse...

lol, that doesn't surprise me.

 

[heretic888]

From the tidbits I've gathered...existentialism keeps popping to mind.

Y'know, its funny, Steve.

See, you keep saying "existentialism" --- but, apparently, what you really mean is "quasi-Nietzscheanism".

For example, one of my favorite "existentialist" philosophers is Martin Heidegger, but I saw not a wink of terms like "trascendence" or "bad faith". Just stuff from Nietzche. Very interesting.

For what its worth, I very much admire existentialist philosophy as a whole, in that it absolute refuses to condone the fantasy of Ego Immortality --- whether via a mythic heaven, New Age narccisisms, or the rational-industrial ontology. The idea that the "self" is not predetermined or preset, but constantly in a state of dialectical development, flux, and evolution is spot-on, as far as I'm concerned. Its also very much in alignment with Piagetian cognitive constructivism (especially the ego-constructivism of Jane Loevinger).

Regarding the whole Pirsig, morality, and "social quality" thing --- I much prefer the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan as far as moral development is concerned.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

And, as for the whole "illuminati conspiracy" thing --- puh'leeze, girlfriend.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Y'know, its funny, Steve.

See, you keep saying "existentialism" --- but, apparently, what you really mean is "quasi-Nietzscheanism".

For example, one of my favorite "existentialist" philosophers is Martin Heidegger, but I saw not a wink of terms like "trascendence" or "bad faith". Just stuff from Nietzche. Very interesting.

For what its worth, I very much admire existentialist philosophy as a whole, in that it absolute refuses to condone the fantasy of Ego Immortality --- whether via a mythic heaven, New Age narccisisms, or the rational-industrial ontology. The idea that the "self" is not predetermined or preset, but constantly in a state of dialectical development, flux, and evolution is spot-on, as far as I'm concerned. Its also very much in alignment with Piagetian cognitive constructivism (especially the ego-constructivism of Jane Loevinger).

Regarding the whole Pirsig, morality, and "social quality" thing --- I much prefer the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan as far as moral development is concerned.

Laterz.

Kohlberg and Gilligan have done a good job of describing the stages of individual moral development from a psychological perspective. This does nothing to explain what IS moral, merely how an individual arrives at certain conclusions about morality within a society. Apples and oranges. Actually, a more appropriate analogy would apples and bowling balls, as the Pirsig's metaphysics of moral quality has absolutely nothing to do with what Kohlberg and Gilligan were researching. They are entirely different levels of a much larger argument. Kohlberg and Gilligan were researching psychological development, Pirsig was exploring the philosophical concept of morality itself, and the philosophical underpinning of what is and isn't this thing called morality.

That having been said, i've always been a fan of Kohlberg and Gilligan's research in moral development as well.