Subj : World of Pogo To : RICHARD M. MEIC From : LEE LOFASO Date : Tue Jul 17 2001 08:13 am Hello Richard, >LL>INDIVIDUAL: "We have met the enemy and he is us." > >RMM>"I have met the enemy and he is me." > >LL>Incorrect. We and us are plural, being that the comment was between > >two individuals (Porkypine and Pogo). Besides, no man is an island > >unto himself, even if only a possum. RMM>Not incorrect from my point of view. Many other points of view are RMM>involved other than that intended by the author of the strip or the author RMM>of your message. When one spreads his creativity to the rest of humanity RMM>other ideas other than the author's should be expected, tolerated and RMM>understood. The "enemy is me" idea is indeed individual, but not what you RMM>expected. The first step of discernment should be "What is the author's intention? What is the author trying to say?" With that in mind, one can give a proper interpretation. Pogo did not say "We have met the enemy and he is Richard." Nor did Pogo say "I have met the enemy and he is Pogo." That much is obvious. Look at the scene, as depicted in the cartoon. Pogo and Porkypine are walking through the swamp, stepping over all sorts of trash. In the middle of the swamp they come across a giant heap of trash, items discarded by themselves over days/weeks/months/years. Hence Pogo comes to the realization that "We have met the enemy and he is us" in reference to himself and Porkypine. There is allusion that others are also responsible for littering the swamp with trash, which makes Pogo's words more than just an individual comment about himself and Porkypine. It would be extremely weird for one to look at his own self as being entirely responsible for all the evils in the world, unless he/she is the Devil Incarnate. And I do not believe that many people look at themselves as being the Devil. :) >LL>COLLECTIVE: Recognition that the enemy is indeed us, whom we have > >met so many times in so very many places. > >RMM>"We have met the enemy and he is us." > >LL>Collective refers to a group as a whole, not individuals within a > >group. Simply restating the individual does not make it collective. RMM>I don't understand your objection. Pogo and Porkypine are part of a group of creatures that inhabit the swamp. Trash is not found simply in one spot of the swamp, but in various places. There are clearly other litterbugs besides Pogo and Porkypine, although they are not shown explicitly in the cartoon. Merely restating the individual does not show the correlation between Pogo, Porkypine, and the other creatures inhabiting the swamp who litter the place with trash. >LL>DISCIPLINE: Recognition of the enemy as ourselves as the conceptual > >foundation for balanced and adequate progress towards creating a > >free, just and peaceful world. > >RMM>"We have met the enemy and he is under control." > >LL>Not by a longshot. Just because we have met the enemy and > >recognized the enemy does not mean that we have the enemy under > >control. It takes more than mere recognition of a problem in > >order to implement solutions for that problem. RMM>I know that... I'm not stating it as truth, only as an idea. The conceptual foundation for creating a balanced and adequate progress is recognition of the problem at hand. Only then can possible solutions be found. The statement you made argues that there is no problem since the problem is "under control". And if the problem is "under control" there is no enemy. >LL>ROLE: Recognition of the enemy as ourselves being the psychological > >foundation for balanced and adequate progress towards creating a > >free, peaceful and fulfilling personal life. > >RMM>"We are the enemy." > >LL>And who is that enemy? RMM>Before I go any further I need to be sure that you want to hear my opinion? Of course. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, as everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions/interpretations. And just because I give a particular interpretation does not mean that I am necessarily correct in that interpretation. The philosophical method I have chosen to use in this discussion is not the only philosophical method one can use, there being many other methods available. But it is a valid and sound method. RMM>Please understand that I have no interest in sharing if the target party RMM>does not want to hear it. I just went through that with John and Frank. I am always interested in hearing varying points of view. Otherwise I'd simply call up my "Eliza" program for a counseling session. :) ["Eliza" is a computer-generated psychologist who agrees with everything I say. My own creation, "Eliza" is very beautiful. :)] RMM>-> Two people in a world of six billion? Or the RMM>-> total population as a whole? What is the psychological foundation? RMM>-> Is it only a handful of people, or many? --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * Come, there's no use in crying like that! --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .