Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[rmcrobertson]

Of course, it is important to remember that, a) old Willy the Shake was both shaky and biased in his presentation of history; b) the brave English were, at the time, engaged in a wee bit o'overseas imperialist piracy.

 

[Cruentus]

I think I'll bring some practicality back to the thread, as it seems to have taken a turn for the weird...

Does anyone deny that some people are conditioned to go TOWARDS the danger, while most move away? Does anyone deny that most people (people with good intentions, families, respectable jobs, etc.) won't stop to help someone in trouble?

If danger was present, most would worry about getting themselves to safety, which seems fairly natural to me. However, there are a few who would worry about getting everyone else to safety first, or making as many people as they can safe, before they worried about themselves.

Some of these people are in uniform....some are not. However, does anyone deny this?

 

[Tgace]

I believe that I read somewhere that most people go "towards the sound of the guns" when they have a duty (job) to rather than some sort of "conditioning". I mean, after all what sort of cop would I be if I drove the opposite direction of a robbery in progress call? Its not "bravery", rather a sense of "this is what am expected (and expect of myself) to do."

 

[Cruentus]

I believe that I read somewhere that most people go "towards the sound of the guns" when they have a duty (job) to rather than some sort of "conditioning". I mean, after all what sort of cop would I be if I drove the opposite direction of a robbery in progress call? Its not "bravery", rather a sense of "this is what am expected (and expect of myself) to do."

I would say that your training, your swearing to protect, your uniform and how you feel about your badge, are all forms of conditioning that makes you respond differently to danger then most people.

And...all your prior experiences (both formal and informal) that caused you to decide to persue a calling like Law Enforcement were all forms of conditioning as well.

This is to your credit, btw.

Paul

 

[Tgace]

True..that being said however, it would really need to be a necessity for me to get involved with a situation that happened while I was off duty with my family somewhere. The risk of something happening to them or them watching something bad happening to me just isnt worth it.....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Heinlein wrote a book in which, essentially, a military cadre runs the government: one only becomes eligible to vote by enlisting.

Moreover, the world depicted is at seemingly-endless war, with an enemy specifically despised because of their biology: no civilian authority whatsoever is visible anywhere in the book, only the military.

The book may very well be satirical, like Heinlein's weird, "Farnholm's Freehold," and his similar novels of the period.

The best single critique of the book appears as Joe Haldeman, "The Forever War."

First of all, Starship troopers was an allegory about communism.

Second, you apparently haven't read the book very well. There is no military leadership in the book other than within the military itself. You cannot show one passage from the book that supports this, because it isn't there. The government in Starship troopers IS NOT military in nature, Military personnell cannot vote. They cannot hold office. It is only AFTER they are released from federal service, when they are citizens, that they can vote or hold public office. It is a civil government ran by those who bought their civil authority THROUGH service. They are no longer in the command of the military, nor do they answer to it. IT answers to THEM. This is the ultimate civil democracy. It is only thought to be a fascist regime by those who see as fascist anyone who disagrees with them (As illustrated by calling the opposing argument Hitleresque). The world is no bipolar Fascist/Communist, they are both creations of European thinkers, Heinlein brought a uniquely american perspective to the dialogue. Heinlein despised compulsory military service. In Starship Troopers ALL soldiers were volunteers, no one was compelled. Further, service and citizenship were open to anyone, with no respect to race, creed, or gender. Anyone who was willing to sacrifice was welcome. Those who decided to remain civilians did not suffer. In fact, they were probably individualy better off. They were left to live their lives with all the personal freedoms afforded any free civilian. They engaged in trade and commerce and enjoyed all the fruits afforded them by the protection of citizens. The only thing they could not do was make political decisions for others. Again, a truly democratic society devoid of racism and oppression. A far cry from the Nazi label given by the pro-communist attackers of the book. This voluntary responsibility is a far cry from the Nazi/Fascist label that many try to hoist on Starship Troopers.

The bugs in Starship Troopers are not HATED because of biology, that is a charge leveled by those who realize the anti-communist leanings of the book, and are offended by THAT. The bugs are hated for their group think and voracious desire to expand (Sound familiar?). The point made by Heinlein is that it is just and moral for a society to defend itself from such a threat. The derogatory terms used toward the bugs in the book are not meant as racism, but merely a commentary on how the enemy is dehumanized in order to fight it. The bugs started the war in Starship Troopers. Again, though, it's easy to see where someone might identify more with the collectivist views of the bugs (communists?) and be deeply offended by it.

Joe Haldeman's Forever War was a completely overrated book which I doubt you've read. I read it years ago and it was extremely boring and overrated. I don't even know if it's still in print. You no doubt read about it on Wikipedia.

How this became a dialogue about Starship Troopers on the part of some, I have no idea, but it's a book i've read several times and the Fascist comments about it are dead wrong.

Finally, in reference to the comments by yourself and RandomPhantom700, it's ironic that Random finds my painting with a broadbrush (just illustrating it's easy) offensive, but you labeling everyone as sounding like "Hitler" isn't? There's a lesson there. I didn't say anyone attacked the military or law enforcement, I said that there was an attempt to downplay the idea that there is a sacrifice involved. That is at the core of the disagreement over those terms. It becomes clear by looking at the focus of most of rmcrobertson's posts.

 

[Tgace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

 

[sgtmac_46]

Personally, I don't believe Starship Troopers is the appropriate book to discuss this subject matter. The fact is, a far more important primer before this topic could be rationally and intellectually discussed is Robert Pirsig's "Lila", which is the followup to his book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In Lila, Pirsig develops further his metaphysics of "Quality". Specifically, and most directly related to the subject matter, is issue of "Biological, Social and Intellectual Quality". I suggest anyone interested in an intellectual discussion of the subject matter should read Lila first. Pirsig deals with the issue of Social order in relation to biological quality, and the Intellectual rebellion against that social control and how it's lead to the disorder and fragmented society we have.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Oh really. Now, you are outmatched. Lifelong (began about...1957, with "Space Cadet," ghosted by Heinlein) sf nerd here. You might find, "Free Men," and, "The Day After Tomorrow," useful reading in regard to your assumption that he was never ever writing satirically. Or, you might wanna note his lifelong admiration of Mark Twain, resulting in such work as, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag," and, "Jerry Was A Man," an utterly indefensible story.

2. I recommend reading Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," as the best single guide to this thread.

3. Nice move, the attempt to describe all critics of "Troopers, "as, "pro-Communists." Not enough of a move, an old-fashioned move, but nice move. I feel so guilty to've mentioned "Reader's Digest," and their made-up nonsense about Dr. Tom Dooley now.

4. Oops, sorry, read all the Haldeman books. Would you care to explain, a) who they're "over-rated," by, b) why they're over-rated, or you just wanna stick with the intellectually lazy, politically-correct offhand remarks?

5. The offensive and hilarious thing about Paul Verhoeven's cream pie in the American face of a film is that he--utterly correctly, in my professional opinion--connect Bug society and the Federation as the hives they were. Or did you not notice that the military, "tactics," of both sides were virtually identical? before you answer, watch not merely "Robocop," but, "Soldier of orange," one of the best war movies ever made. Yes, he distorted the overt message of the novel. Oops, he got the political unconscious dead right.

6. We don't have a disorderly and fragmented society. We have a commercialized, consumerized and mediatized one, well on its way to becoming Foucault's carceral nightmare. But hell, even John Carpenter noticed THAT.

7. The whole notion of separating human beings along the lines of a, "dogs," and, sheep," binary opposition is characteristic of the register of the Imaginary which underpins all fascisms.

P.S. Heinlein actually wrote novel after novel, book after book, throughout his career--see, "By His Bootstraps," "Solution Unsatisfactory," the Corbett books, "Red Planet," "Citizen of the Galaxy," that novel set on Venus whose title I cannot recall right now, "Revolt in 2100," "Friday," and others--about the dangers of a militaristic, colonialist and slaving central government. ALL of his bastard autocrats have some theory about being sheepdogs, guiding the helpless sheepies. I suggest you read them before further sledding along with the Mussolini argument. Oh, and read the stuff in which he argues for the biological superiority of a few. Oops, looks like--like a lot of American writers--he was possessed of a somewhat-contradictory ideology.

 

[Flatlander]

Ya know, I'm curious, Robert. How could your Constitution retain its relevance if there were no Americans prepared to accept the duty of protecting it?

Given that there are members of our civilization who choose to take (posessions, safety, lives, vandalize) from people rather than contribute (work, pay taxes, love their families, volunteer) and there are folks out there who are less than able (disabled, naive, elderly, physically weak, low self esteem) to protect themselves and/or enforce the rule of law; who shall accept that role???

Sheep, wolves, sheepdogs, it is a metaphor. Is it a good metaphor? I don't know. It worked for me, I got the point.

If you find it to be unsatisfactory, simply provide us with a metaphor you feel is more appropriate. Really, its that easy.

Incidentally, I encountered a great deal of difficulty in attempting to relate any of your points made in the previous post to the topic of this thread. Perhaps you are overthinking this. Perhaps I'm underthinking this. From here, its tough to say.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ya know, I'm curious too. Where is it in the works of the so-called founding fathers that they announce that the elite are superior to ordinary citizens, and have the right to tell them what to do, for lo, they are a sheepdog?

Or I'm curious about this: how long does democracy last, when a few, a happy few, decide--not because they want power, perish forbid, but only to help the poor foolish schmucks--that they are just going to tell, "the sheep," what to do?

Ideas, images, words, have meanings that come out of their cultural and historical connections. The sheep-and-sheepdogs jazz has some particularly-unfortunate connections, is all, and there's no point pretending otherwise. Or perhaps there is.

Another metaphor? OK. How 'bout this one: one of the problems democracies have is that some people seem to be more willing to accept responsibility than others. Another problem is that a few people keep thinking that they're better than everybody else. Another problem is that we need cops and soldiers and laws, but that these very things create problems at times.

Oops, not really metaphors at all. Good; that way, maybe we discuss reality rather than talk about wolvies and sheepies.

P.S. Was responding to snooty post.

 

[Rich Parsons]

P.S. Was responding to snooty post.

I see nothing different in this post then I see many or not all of your other psots.

Why the caveat?

 

[sgtmac_46]

1. Oh really. Now, you are outmatched. Lifelong (began about...1957, with "Space Cadet," ghosted by Heinlein) sf nerd here. You might find, "Free Men," and, "The Day After Tomorrow," useful reading in regard to your assumption that he was never ever writing satirically. Or, you might wanna note his lifelong admiration of Mark Twain, resulting in such work as, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag," and, "Jerry Was A Man," an utterly indefensible story.

You keep up with these strawman arguments, and i'm going to call you Scarecrow. You might want to quote me on when I said that Heinlein NEVER wrote satirically. I stated that Starship troopers was not satire, as it reflected Heinlein's anti-communist leanings. You might want to read something a little heavier than SF to get political enlightenment, however.

2. I recommend reading Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," as the best single guide to this thread.

I recommend reading something that hasn't been debunked for over 50 years and fallen in to such ridicule that anyone who reads it seriously isn't autmatically shown to be a lightweight. Why is it everyone with just enough psuedo-psychological understanding always picks Freud as a primer. Usually guys who took a couple psychology classes in College, because it always starts with Freud, despite the fact that any discussion of Freud and modern psychology is about as relevant as discussing the Wright brothers and modern aircraft engineering.

3. Nice move, the attempt to describe all critics of "Troopers, "as, "pro-Communists." Not enough of a move, an old-fashioned move, but nice move. I feel so guilty to've mentioned "Reader's Digest," and their made-up nonsense about Dr. Tom Dooley now.

About as old fashioned as calling anyone who disagrees with you "Hitler". That was my little of bit of satire to you, and you fell for it. It's ironic that you feel the need to point out the use of an obvious ploy you've been using since this thread started. Who's in over their head? pffft.

4. Oops, sorry, read all the Haldeman books. Would you care to explain, a) who they're "over-rated," by, b) why they're over-rated, or you just wanna stick with the intellectually lazy, politically-correct offhand remarks?

Why would I bother, nobody but you even seems to remember it. Politically correct? You might want to use terms with a little more thought before you just toss them off, that sounded ridiculous.

5. The offensive and hilarious thing about Paul Verhoeven's cream pie in the American face of a film is that he--utterly correctly, in my professional opinion--connect Bug society and the Federation as the hives they were. Or did you not notice that the military, "tactics," of both sides were virtually identical? before you answer, watch not merely "Robocop," but, "Soldier of orange," one of the best war movies ever made. Yes, he distorted the overt message of the novel. Oops, he got the political unconscious dead right.

Professional opinion? lol. Paul Verhoeven has very much the same political opinion as you, obviously, coming from a socialist viewpoint, he tried the same old tired tactic of linking any viewpoint he disagreed with to Hitler. That was the point of the entire movie. That's why the "Triumph of the Will-esque" propaganda pieces. Robocop worked for me when I was twelve. Further, it's ironic that you have to use Verhoeven's hatchetpiece as evidence against Heinlein's version. Why not quote Heinlein's original. It should be relatively easy to prove your thesis with the original work, not other peoples "Take" on it.

6. We don't have a disorderly and fragmented society. We have a commercialized, consumerized and mediatized one, well on its way to becoming Foucault's carceral nightmare. But hell, even John Carpenter noticed THAT.

Obviously you haven't read Lila, or you'd be attempting to dissect it as opposed to discussion my statement about it. Try actually reading the work cited, before you attack it.

7. The whole notion of separating human beings along the lines of a, "dogs," and, sheep," binary opposition is characteristic of the register of the Imaginary which underpins all fascisms.

There we go with the Fascism theme again. I guess that's more of that intellectual laziness you were talking about earlier. The world is more complex than the bipolar one you imagine. The sheep/sheepdog comment is allegory, but you really do believe that the world is made up of only fascists and non-fascists. Of course, I guess if it's the only note you can play, keep tooting it. Talk about in over your head.

P.S. Heinlein actually wrote novel after novel, book after book, throughout his career--see, "By His Bootstraps," "Solution Unsatisfactory," the Corbett books, "Red Planet," "Citizen of the Galaxy," that novel set on Venus whose title I cannot recall right now, "Revolt in 2100," "Friday," and others--about the dangers of a militaristic, colonialist and slaving central government. ALL of his bastard autocrats have some theory about being sheepdogs, guiding the helpless sheepies. I suggest you read them before further sledding along with the Mussolini argument. Oh, and read the stuff in which he argues for the biological superiority of a few. Oops, looks like--like a lot of American writers--he was possessed of a somewhat-contradictory ideology.

You keep missing the point. It may be your obsession with fascism that keeps your mind narrow. Sheep dogs don't guide the sheep, they serve them. Sheep aren't required to respect or even appreciate the sheepdog. They are free to do whatever they want. It's the sheepdogs who do the suffering and sacrificing. That's probably the part you don't understand, suffering and sacrifice. The Sheep command the sheepdogs, the sheep make rules for the sheepdogs. The elected are sheep too. It is only that the sheep dog is ordered to stand the line between the wolves and the sheep, so that the sheep can live out their lives in whatever matter they see fit. The sheepdogs don't make the laws that they enforce, the sheep do. Again, you keep up this silly strawman, where you keep acting as if anyone is suggesting that the sheepdogs should RULE the sheep. Only the wolves want that. It is the sheep (social quality) using the sheepdogs, not the other way around.

Read Lila and get back with me. Biological, Social and Intellectual Quality and the conflict between them is at the core of this argument. Sheepdogs serve social quality, society in effect. Sheepdogs must, of necessity, be subservient to social quality, and social quality, in turn, to intellectual quality. We call them sheepdogs because they have a certain biological quality so they are able to engage in conflict with those who live on the biological level. What you are demonstrating, however, is the intellectual ingratitude toward social control over biological quality present among many who don't understand the dual nature of it's relationship. Robert Pirsig deconstructs your line of argument pretty effectively and with a finality that I doubt you'll very easily overcome. He does so by pointing out the inconsistency of thought present within the metaphysics of Intellectual quality toward both social and biological quality. Demanding that sheepdogs not engage in enforcement activity over intellectual quality is paramount to a free society. Demanding that sheepdogs not engage in enforcement over biological quality, however, is self-destructive and tantamount to suicide. Intellectual quality needs to understand who's side it is on. That is because it IS moral that biological quality be suppressed for the sake of social and intellectual quality, but not that intellectual quality be suppressed for the sake of social or biological quality. It is in this analogy that the term sheepdogs take on an extremely appropriate term. They exhibit the biological qualities of the wolf (or of biological man), aggression, physical strength. They have been adapted by social (sheep) and intellectual man to serve them, and protect them from biological quality (wolves), just as real sheepdogs were adapted from real wolves. The fact is, however, that if sheep represent social man, the Intellectual level is MAN himself, who should ultimately be in control. Without social control over biological quality, there could be no society. Without intellectual quality taking over, however, human society could not evolve. That is why your fascist argument is utterly unfair and flawed. Fascism and Nazi Germany was immoral, because it attempted to make social institutions, the state, dominant over intellectual quality. I could go on, but I won't.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Pirsig is the best you got?

2. Personally, I'd learn to spell, "pseudo," correctly before I went off about, "intellectual quality."

3. Heinlein never wrote satirically. Really. Damn. And here I thought that "Troopers," was an entertaining satire about militarism, while books like, "Podkayne of Mars," and a whole long list of others were satires about corporate capitalism. But then, unlike other children of John W. Campbell--the most famous being L. Ron Hubbard--Heinlein tended to go with the whole, "long live freedom, and damn the ideologies," approach of your Robinson Jeffers.

4. If you think Freud's irrelevant, well, a) you ain't read none, b) you've bought the Party Line (try W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud," which might just have a thing or two to show y'all--"If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life/Would become impossible, the monolith/Of State be broken and prevented/The co-operation of avengers"--about the limits of Communism and Fascism) that Bush et al have been pushing, c) you're simply unfamiliar withe Freud's hilarious careereing through the intellectual life of the last thirty years.

5. If ref to point #4--Sparky, if you want to rank on people like me, follow Freud's path through academia since, oh, 1979, and you'll have much, much better ammo. You particularly wanna Googol, 'Louis Althusser." Trust me. MUCH better ammo.

6. Nice try on the, "12," remark about "Robocop." Haven't seen, "Soldier of Orange," have ya? Note--to criticize Verhoeven properly, discuss, a) cyborgs and male fantasy, b) his misogyny (see "Spetters," and "Striptease," together, much better ammo), c) "Total Recall." Whoops--that would demand being familiar with, say, Claire Kahane's, "In Dora's Case," and Constance Penley's stuff on "Terminator," and whoops, there ye are with Freud again, me hearty.

7. The oldest excuse of all dictators is that they are only the servants of the People.

8. Thanks for slamming the shuttlecock back over the Net; it's weird fun, and no harm meant on this side.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=296039&postcount=7

 

[Tgace]

1. Pirsig is the best you got?

2. Personally, I'd learn to spell, "pseudo," correctly before I went off about, "intellectual quality."

3. Heinlein never wrote satirically. Really. Damn. And here I thought that "Troopers," was an entertaining satire about militarism, while books like, "Podkayne of Mars," and a whole long list of others were satires about corporate capitalism. But then, unlike other children of John W. Campbell--the most famous being L. Ron Hubbard--Heinlein tended to go with the whole, "long live freedom, and damn the ideologies," approach of your Robinson Jeffers.

4. If you think Freud's irrelevant, well, a) you ain't read none, b) you've bought the Party Line (try W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud," which might just have a thing or two to show y'all--"If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life/Would become impossible, the monolith/Of State be broken and prevented/The co-operation of avengers"--about the limits of Communism and Fascism) that Bush et al have been pushing, c) you're simply unfamiliar withe Freud's hilarious careereing through the intellectual life of the last thirty years.

5. If ref to point #4--Sparky, if you want to rank on people like me, follow Freud's path through academia since, oh, 1979, and you'll have much, much better ammo. You particularly wanna Googol, 'Louis Althusser." Trust me. MUCH better ammo.

6. Nice try on the, "12," remark about "Robocop." Haven't seen, "Soldier of Orange," have ya? Note--to criticize Verhoeven properly, discuss, a) cyborgs and male fantasy, b) his misogyny (see "Spetters," and "Striptease," together, much better ammo), c) "Total Recall." Whoops--that would demand being familiar with, say, Claire Kahane's, "In Dora's Case," and Constance Penley's stuff on "Terminator," and whoops, there ye are with Freud again, me hearty.

7. The oldest excuse of all dictators is that they are only the servants of the People.

8. Thanks for slamming the shuttlecock back over the Net; it's weird fun, and no harm meant on this side.

hmmmm...

 

[sgtmac_46]

1. Pirsig is the best you got?

That's the best critique you have of Pirsig. lol. It's obvious you don't have the first clue of his argument, let alone how to develop a critique of it. That's because the whole subject matter requires more than a cursory scanning of a synopsis and definitely requires more than a one liner for critique.

2. Personally, I'd learn to spell, "pseudo," correctly before I went off about, "intellectual quality."

Spelling corrections and typo corrections seem to be the last act of a scoundrel in a lost argument. Thanks for illustrating that so well.

3. Heinlein never wrote satirically. Really. Damn. And here I thought that "Troopers," was an entertaining satire about militarism, while books like, "Podkayne of Mars," and a whole long list of others were satires about corporate capitalism. But then, unlike other children of John W. Campbell--the most famous being L. Ron Hubbard--Heinlein tended to go with the whole, "long live freedom, and damn the ideologies," approach of your Robinson Jeffers.

If you read everything with the carelessness you read my posts, it's no wonder we have a disagreement. It's obvious you missed my Heinlein satire comment.

4. If you think Freud's irrelevant, well, a) you ain't read none, b) you've bought the Party Line (try W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud," which might just have a thing or two to show y'all--"If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life/Would become impossible, the monolith/Of State be broken and prevented/The co-operation of avengers"--about the limits of Communism and Fascism) that Bush et al have been pushing, c) you're simply unfamiliar withe Freud's hilarious careereing through the intellectual life of the last thirty years.

The relevance of Freud seems only in dispute by you. He has nothing of coherence to lend to this discussion. Why you are clinging to him, I do not know. It seems rather sophomoric and above you.

5. If ref to point #4--Sparky, if you want to rank on people like me, follow Freud's path through academia since, oh, 1979, and you'll have much, much better ammo. You particularly wanna Googol, 'Louis Althusser." Trust me. MUCH better ammo.

Again with Freud, certainly you can do better.

6. Nice try on the, "12," remark about "Robocop." Haven't seen, "Soldier of Orange," have ya? Note--to criticize Verhoeven properly, discuss, a) cyborgs and male fantasy, b) his misogyny (see "Spetters," and "Striptease," together, much better ammo), c) "Total Recall." Whoops--that would demand being familiar with, say, Claire Kahane's, "In Dora's Case," and Constance Penley's stuff on "Terminator," and whoops, there ye are with Freud again, me hearty.

I have no desire to discuss Heinlein, he is irrelavent to the topic at hand. If you want to turn this in to a film debate, you'll put me to sleep.

7. The oldest excuse of all dictators is that they are only the servants of the People.

That's the oldest excuse of all servants, are you saying all public servants are dictators? robertson has now established that all public servants are dictators. The garbage man is now a despot. This is getting funny.

8. Thanks for slamming the shuttlecock back over the Net; it's weird fun, and no harm meant on this side.

Oh, i'm very amused by this dialogue.

p.s. I purposely misspelled servent to help robertson frame his next argument. You're welcome.

 

[punisher73]

Another point. While the article specifially mentions police and military as the "sheepdogs," I don't think this status is limited to those two groups. To me a sheepdog is anyone who will say "I refuse to be a victim or allow people I care about to be victimized by the scum of society."

Exactly, I wonder how many of the people who have jumped on the big political hidden agenda stuff have actually heard him speak in person or heard him explain more about this concept. This was the point he was making...you can be a sheepdog and be a lawyer, doctor or burgerflipper it doesn't matter.

Ask yourself this easy question....If you were in a mall and you saw some thug trying to beat up an old woman for her purse than what would you do?

1) Try and help her the best you can
2) Defer to someone else to help her

If you answered #1 than you are a sheepdog, if you answered #2 than you are a sheep.

 

[FearlessFreep]

This was the point he was making...you can be a sheepdog and be a lawyer, doctor or burgerflipper it doesn't matter.

That's how I took it. In some ways I'm a sheep, but as I train in MA I'm learning to be a sheepdog as well...and when I'm a sheepdog it is my wife and kids who are the sheep. But...my kids have their own friends and peers to deal with as well and in some ways my son is also learning to be a sheepdog, and yet so so are my daughters. In other words, being a sheep or being a sheepdog is just a state of mind and a willingness or not to act in a certain, physical way, when confronted by a 'wolf', especially for the sake of those who cannot.

What I'm more intrigued by is that attitude of sheep toward sheepdogs. The sheep know the wolves are out there; they know they need a sheepdog, but there is a certain nervousness in being around one. I know a guy at church who is a TKD black-belt, and while he is a great guy there is always in the back of my mind the knowledge that this guy is physically dangerous. I know he would never do anything against me, but I also know he could..and it's an odd state of mind to think about him. I think we often have that feeling in dealing with police officers and soldiers as well. "He's a good guy...he's my protector....he's dangerous"

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, I thought that might happen.

To summarize: you haven't read the books, you don't understand what I'm arguing, you aren't going to try, and you find it easier to attempt personal attacks and a claim of irrelevancy. That's common, these days, given what's passed off for discussion on radio and TV.

You might want to apply the dogies and sheepies analogy to intellectual life, where the dogs know the books and arguments and the sheep repeat back whatever they're told by the media, baaing occasionally at anybody who talks to them like human beings who simply see the world differently.

In other words, in intellectual life--I have the heavy responsibility of being the dog, trying to guide and to help the sheep.

Somehow, I bet the responses to that last sentence are going to show a quick rejection of the whole analogy--or (I know!) a quick set of remarks about pointy-head intellectuals who think they're smarter than they are but have been Brainwashed By Communist Lesbian Freudians.

These self-glorifying analogies of dogs and sheep are inherently offensive, and inherently fascist (with a small, "f"), inasmuch as they assume that the few are naturally superior to the many.

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of believing that I am inherently smarter or stronger or even more moral than anybody else. I'm stuck with these damn democratic principles, whether we're talking about society or intellectual life.