What the world thinks of America

[Okami]

ChristopherM

After re-reading the posts you and I have posted I have decided that the historical context is irrelavent.

I touched on this in my last post.

What is going on now is what is important. The historical context does little for this discussion because the current ebb and flow of world politics does not seem to take it into account.

I appreciate the importance of the history of both entities, but they do not factor much into the discussion. The fact is that now there is a disagreement on how to handle foreign policy. The "how" now is the problem.

I started a book two days ago about strategy in the new world. It waxes historically to set the stage for its discussion, but talks mainly in the present (1995). One item it mentioned is that a fear of the smaller European countries is that the US will make one of 2 choices. One that it will become imperialistic or worse, that it will return to its isolationism policy (pre-WWI and WWII) and let the smaller countries fend for themselves. This is somewhat dated, being almost 10 years old, but seems to hit the target, if not the bulls-eye.

However, the colonialism of Europe, and the militaristic history of Europe is not relavent to the discussion except to build background for the current trend to use diplomacy instead of soldiers to solve problems.

Now I go back to work.

[Christopher M]

Yes, but even if you accept that position, you haven't addressed my remarks, which mostly related to current events, not historical context.

BTW, I prefer Plotinus.

[Chang Style Novice]

I've been meaning to ask, Chris - is it my imagination or is that an opium poppy?

[Christopher M]

lol

Probably a little from door A, a little from door B...

[Chang Style Novice]

So much for a straight answer. And learning that anasognosia means unawareness of illness isn't clarifying things any. Unless you are talking about heroin users being in denial about their addiction or something.

[Christopher M]

Yes, it's a [pre] poppy. I don't know what kind. But according to your imagination it could be lots of things. You're bang on about the anosognosia remark.

[Chang Style Novice]

OK, thanks, end of digression.

[Christopher M]

Haha... no need; this is way more fascinating and hopefully more amicable than politics. Did you read much on anosognosia? It's really fascinating... it's not just denial of illness; it's true delusion, utter organic denial; the illness is not there. It's relatively common following certain strokes which cause paralysis of one side of the body; the patient will be anosognosic regarding the paralysis. The mind thinks up all sorts of crazy things to explain the discrepency between consciousness and reality... actually, technically it's those things we should call the delusion. People have been known to remark in disgust that a medical student has left a cadaver's arm in their bed - in an attempt to explain this unmovable arm. Somatoparaphrenia - denial of ownership of one's body parts!

[Chang Style Novice]

Honestly, I only checked up enough to find out what it means. I did see some references to Oliver Sach's work, though, and although I've never read his stuff it's come highly recommended and my ear has been bent by some of his stories in the past.

[Christopher M]

Yeah, his stuff is really interesting. Ramachandran's "Phantoms of the Brain" is even better, imho; organized more by concept than as case studies.

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, you know what they say: if you want something dendrite, you have to do it yourself.

(I'm very sorry)

[Christopher M]

I wish you could hear the noise I just made in response to that.

A priest was walking by, and he ran in swinging a crucifix.

[norther practitioner]

Well, you know what they say: if you want something dendrite, you have to do it yourself.

ummmmmmmmm..........

(I'm very sorry)

As you should be....