Search options (Page 15 of 30)

Margaret Atwood in Oryx and Crake combines verb-tense and POV change within the same character to effect both a flashback (actually constituting most of the novel) and internal-dialog thought change between the time periods.  Atwood is to be respected for artistic craftsmanship while being commercially successful through politically-correct themes and character stereotypes exemplified by Oryx and Crake through limpid universal politically left fallacious memes such as the Evil Corporation doing evil things to The People. Some of her other stuff is offensively feminist and green.

On the other hand, as the one on TNBW who is actively seeking to create of style of internal-dialog without punctuation gimmicks such as all that annoying italicization, I blend narration, explicit and internal dialog, and plot progression - the prototype (not original to me, though I can't name an author from whom I might have gotten it) being Pristine Universe, better in the chapter-form within Remembrances and Reconciliation (ch.8)  than the short story I created from that chapter because the difficulty of the style is moving the story along enough for a short story. I think any novel needs to step away from the style for a bit to push the plot forward, but I will try to see what I can do in the third book of the Remembrance series that starts at the end of the second and unfinished book Maximilian's Achilles and Patroclus (ch.7).

Be that as it may, any style which does not use standard dialog designation will receive resistance but will only fail in an artistic sense if the author is not logically consistent in his own rules he makes up. There is, by the way, no standard for italicizing dialog, and certainly that method for expressing POV change rarely works any more than the standard quote with 'he thought' dialog tag.

Bellum in Gallia malum, sed in matella taetrum.

Most misunderstood/not taught/never read/who-cares-about fact on communism:

Withering away of the state is a concept of Marxism, coined by Friedrich Engels, and referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear, as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering … _the_state

In the list of human universals { http://www.mindmelding.com/Human%20Universals.htm }are:

redress of wrongs
resistance to abuse of power, to dominance

This is settled, has always been settled, and will always be settled by a sovereign, and under the principle of the Rule of Law, a sovereign state is a politically organized body of people under a single sovereign.  It is that abolition of "coercive enforcement of the law" (i.e, Rule of Law) that, in fact, seeks to achieve dominance of some over others without the rule of law; and, of course, that's oriental despotism.  Aristotle asserted the irony of such despotism in that it is not based on force but rather on consent, but also of the consent of slave to master.

Two major (oriental) despotic peoples: Muscovy/Russian Empire/U.S.S.R.  and Empire/People's Republic of China.  Wow! Weird how they shoved through Engels' stateless societies through the ideals of socialism.

Yes.  You, on the other hand, give us the LIGHT and the TRUTH.  Shall you tell us there have not been over 28,000 attacks in  the name of {omitted} since 9/11/2001?

As before, I think you are being led down the wrong path in this approach.  Start with Piaget and end with Pinker and Wilson and, well, that's still a start. The moral sense within the context of nature vs. nurture is nature.  Consider in the broadest possible way all the things all men, regardless of the societies in which they are situated, do and induce from that how and why an individual would evolve his mind around morality, rather than a more obvious deductive utility.

Here's a list:

http://www.mindmelding.com/Human%20Universals.htm

These are things evolution has given the human species in order to better survive.
It is a complex array of universals an individual must know without being able to know empirically himself.

I don't have an answer to why the leftist-liberal of today (i.e., stripped of any Christian base), virtually denying the existence of any objectifiable moral sense, still has such a high horse from which he pontificates.

Harris is wrong in the furtherance of his analysis, and it is better, if not complete, to view islam as a political movement and not a religion. In this country which tolerates a multiplicity of religions and political beliefs up to the point of conduct limits, there is actually no difference on whether a non-muslim views islam as a religion or a political ideology except for the fact this country has a culture of super-tolerance for religious beliefs over political beliefs, and the constitutional tests for government-religion interaction are more lax than for government-politics interaction. Harris wants to minimize the Pearl Harbor parallel [there's Shinto complicity, of course] when it is almost an exact match even if the strategy for war must be different.

Moreover, Harris, Dawkins, [the late] Hitchens, are atheists who believe in a squishy anarcho-socialist, materialist, anti-causality/pro-determinism fantasy ideology.

Actually, I think you said white heterosexual male Protestant Americans is the problem, or was that someone to whose mind you have melded?

Matthew 6:6 within the first level of understanding means that followers of a minority faith should lie low and even be secretive, and if the God of that faith has any power to hear prayer, he will do so.  At a broader, second level understanding it means that faith does not require ostentation, and contrariwise puritans were sometimes rather showy about their lack of ostentation, so good at demonstrating their goodness, and the modern liberal, the social-justice warrior, has that annoying puritan inheritance.   Evangelism is different because of the proselytizing nature. Islam, requiring everyone in the world to be muslim, or die, or submit to lower status, is not evangelism but imperialism.

To be truthful, no one of the general population understands the warrior unless of a class he brings material success to that population. "Warrior readings of islamic text" only brings to mind that personal Sharia does not demand it, and the idea of suicidal action for no material gain for anyone is "crazy,"  in the same way it was for the Allied soldier to storm the beaches of Normandy on D-day.

To defeat-- at  the very least slow down to ineffectual -- the islamic enemy we must seek out and destroy every muslim warrior on earth to show the general-population non-warrior muslim that it is indeed 'crazy' to fight the infidel. {Imagine a conclusion to WWII after an Allied defeat on D-Day.} There was a time, from WWII to the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, when America sought out and fought on a strategic basis every socialist warrior until, we might have thought, socialism stood dead in the water. However, evil does not ever go away but rather dissipates for a while to regroup later. There has been that utopian streak in American consciousness's where there is an idyllic future in which evil has been eradicated and we can just relax to pursue the American dream of working hard, paying bills, and being charitable, but I'd like every muslim, catholic, and any sort of immigrant, who has some perverse notion that American culture is not born of a blessed blend of Aristotle and Protestant Christianity,  to read a user agreement and acknowledge understanding to faithfully uphold:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

They failed to mention {except Fox, once} that the slaughter the muslim fighter intended (see: nightclub in Paris in which 100 were killed but those muslims intended only to take hostages at the outset)  was stopped when he was met by an armed security guard who forced retreat to the restrooms, not good for the victims-hostages who retreated to there but who were far fewer in number and somewhat protected by barriers.

Jihadist death toll on U.S. soil after 9/11 under Bush: 0; death toll under Obama: 91.

No. Or you might be splitting hairs.

Yes, exactly.  That was to be the point of federalism and shared dual sovereignty which began to expire as a concept with the entry of Utah into the union so long as Church LDS got the word from God polygamy was no loner acceptable, and prior to that, of course, by the War of the North Against the South.

Excuse me that I gave the benefit of the doubt for some basic understanding of American history during the progressive era. In economic policy there was no difference between FDR and Mussolini except on the nature of their respective capitalist systems (Italy, weak;U.S.A. strong)  As to Islam, what part of the fact that Mohammed, a thief, a murderer, a pedophile, took every bit of primitivism of Judaism, ignored Christianity except to name Jesus as a prophet,  to fashion not a religion but a bellicose territorial expansion strategy -- that every new convert from Khan to the Ottomans knew very well -- have you ever researched?  I can't teach one who knows nothing.

By the definition of corporatist socialism/fascism  presented by Mussolini and copied by Hitler, was not FDR and his NRA and panoply of social-controlled economy also not such a corporatist? 

Planned industrial “harmony.” Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government’s interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be “coordinated” by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was “too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic . . . intervention, case by case, as the need arises,” Mussolini complained in 1935.[9] Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward “certain fixed objectives” and would “introduce order in the economic field.”[10] Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain “unity of aim,” as defined by the government planners.  https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

Therefore, what of my "rant" that the enemy cannot be defeated when our head of state and commander-in-chief is sympathetic to the enemy in some important particular ways is demonstrably incorrect?

“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … z4BbJo1HZm

“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”