Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[tshadowchaser]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful, and on topic.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

Personal attacks? lol. Like calling anyone who we disagree with, a Fascist (i'm sorry, small "f" fascist). I still haven't heard a comment with the resemblance of any type of understanding on Pirsig. I take it you couldn't gleen enough from the internet threads to make a coherent response.

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.

I think I already have. I find it ironic that, while beating up on the strawman you created about others wanting to be superior (that would be your painting of their argument) you turn around and paint yourself as the intellectual superior of everyone else. Ironic, isn't it.

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

More support of my last response.

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.

No, it's actually a quick rejection of how it applies in your particular situation. As a general conclusion, however, it is accurate in the sense that there are those who's job it is to guide the intellecual development of society. As those people aren't guarding against biological quality gone astray, however, they would not be considered sheepdogs. Sheepdogs guard society from biology. Those who's concern is intellectual advancement might best be analogized to the shepherd, if you want to belabor the point. Perhaps part of the debate has been a basic misunderstanding on your part of the application of the analogy label "Sheepdog".

You've basically misunderstood it as being a "Leader", which it is not, a leader would be the shepherd. You might claim that dictators have thought of themselves as "shepherds" of the people, but it's absurd to say that they thought of themselves as sheepdogs. Sheepdogs guard society against biology, but only at the command of society. This shows the fundamental absurdity of your argument. Dictators think of themselves as the shepherd. However, in a democratic society, sheep need no absolute shepherd, they simply need sheepdogs to guard against wolves, not guide the sheep. Democratic sheep have the capacity to guide themselves. Further, Intellectual sheep could be thought of as the shepherd himself, not sheep.

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.

They certainly may seem inherently offensive to you, though why that is still remains unclear. (Actually, it is clear to me, it's all explained within the Biology/Social Social/Intellecual conflict duality outlined by Pirsig.) Again, it could be that any distinction between people offends your egalitarian sensibilities.

All I keep hearing from you, though, is nothing but you painting your opponents as fascists (with a small, "f", of course).

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.

while you paint yourself as the great savior of democracy and intellectual thought.

I can read all your old posts for this line of argument, what i'd really like to hear is something new. I'm really interested in dialogue, not pretentious statements about everyone else lacking the intellectual capacity to understand what you are saying. Come on, man, lighten up.

In closing, in a democratic society it is imperative that sheepdogs operate with an understanding that the master they serve are free men. That they are to guard the gates of democracy and democratic society, with their very lives. That they must guard against tyranny and brigandage with equal ferocity, knowing the whole time that it is the sheep and the shepherd that they serve, and that is the wolf who is their eternal enemy. That's why, when men take the oath of a "sheepdog", they swear to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the government, not a man, but the Constitution of the United States.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Notice it didn't say that they are superior to anyone that, in fact, they serve them. That they must obey and defend the very document that declares their freedoms, that it is their sole purpose to protect it with their life and honor. And what happens if a sheepdog decides to turn his teeth against the flock? He should be destroyed as a lesson to all other sheepdogs as to what happens when his oath is not honored.

Nuff' said.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm afraid--and I write as one of the intellectual guardians of American thought here--that you're completely astray here. Among other things, I called nobody a fascist. Except maybe Mussolini, and, well...

I've tried to help, but as one of my professors told me, "Robert, from time to time you will simply find that some of the common people do not wish to acknowledge your superiority in matters intellectual. Nor do they wish to recognize your having taken on the responsibility of keeping the light of Western culture alit."

Offensive, ain't it?

I say it's spinach--just like the sheepdog bit--and I say the hell with it.

 

[Tgace]

Thought and deed are two different things aren't they?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm afraid--and I write as one of the intellectual guardians of American thought here--that you're completely astray here. Among other things, I called nobody a fascist. Except maybe Mussolini, and, well...

I've tried to help, but as one of my professors told me, "Robert, from time to time you will simply find that some of the common people do not wish to acknowledge your superiority in matters intellectual. Nor do they wish to recognize your having taken on the responsibility of keeping the light of Western culture alit."

Offensive, ain't it?

I say it's spinach--just like the sheepdog bit--and I say the hell with it.

Your attempts at sarcasm are more telling about you than you think. It appears as though you take the greatest offense, not to the suggestion that anyone is superior to anyone else (As it is obvious you believe that you are superior to anyone here), but to the paranoia on your part that anyone else thinks they are superior to you.

This seems to be the case even when that has no where been suggested. You frame the argument that others make so that you can again argue that you are somehow to superior to them. It's no wonder you're so interested in Freud, you are starting to sound like one of his case studies.

As for the ludicrous suggestion that you have not either insinuated anyone you disagree with was a 1) Nazi 2) Hitler or 3) a Fascist (with a small "f" of course), or out and out asserted it directly, anyone that's read your posts knows that is the most ludicrous assertion you've made yet. I don't think there is a post where you HAVEN'T called or insinuated that those you disagree with were one (or all) of those things. Further, it seems to be the center piece of any argument you make.

Again, save the pretentiousness for a more appropriate place. There does seem to be a marked deterioration in the quality of the last couple of your posts, however. Are you quite alright?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Liked the post on thought, word, and deed. Exactly the point, in my opinion.

Of course, it is to be expected that the sheep would attempt to deny the superiority of their intellectual guardians. Expectable, too, that they would attempt to describe anyone who disagrees with their status in the world of the mind with some sort of Dr. Phil-esque faux concern.

I say all those fantasies of one's superiority are spinach, and I say the hell with them. But then, I have these democratic principles that don't reduce to simple analogies that puff me up, and paper over who my real enemies are.

I prefer to believe that police officers, soldiers and the like are doing a kind of social dirty work that I am not myself suited for. I think they deserve our respect for doing it--but not anyone's obeisance, and not anyone's kowtowing admission that they are as sheep, however tempting the imagery from the Old Testament might be.

Why isn't being a human being, working hard at an honorable profession, struggling to do what's right, enough?

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Tgace]

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

Yeah its all about police officers and soldiers believing they are superior....:shrug:


Baaaa!
Woof!

 

[Tgace]

Yes..comparing people to animals is preposterous...oh wait....

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/aesop/aesop1.html

The Crab and Its Mother


A CRAB said to her son, "Why do you walk so one-sided, my child?
It is far more becoming to go straight forward." The young Crab
replied: "Quite true, dear Mother; and if you will show me the
straight way, I will promise to walk in it." The Mother tried in
vain, and submitted without remonstrance to the reproof of her
child.


Example is more powerful than precept.

Methinks someones agenda is showing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah; well, then, perhaps one would wish to re-examine the desire to cling to a repressive analogy expressed on this thread. And, one might wish to re-examine the connections of that analogy to repressive thought across the political spectrum.

Of course, those of us who have taken on the responsibility of intellectual guardians tend to consider such issues in the selfsame terms advanced by middlebrow Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things," a question he borrows from Spinoza.

But such questions cannot be answered in terms of children's stories.

They require looking at history and cultural connections, such as the ones that lead, "intellectuals," and, "workers," alike to dream of their superiority to everyone else.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ok, Tgace, which will it be: the broken record picture again, or another "Woof"?

 

[Tgace]

Ok, Tgace, which will it be: the broken record picture again, or another "Woof"?

So you work for the same label? At least the opposing viewpoint on this thread has been contributing something to this topic...unlike yourself. Even if he ignores the quotes from the original speech that repeatedly state that the "sheep/Sheepdog" thing is about responsibility rather than job. Like the quote about Mr. Beemer above that was conveniently ignored. I know many people who are neither soldiers or cops that are far from "sheep". One also thinks that some people are overthinking and projecting overmuch on a simple analogy. A basic storytelling tool that goes back to Aesop.

 

[Tgace]

Aesop's Fables
The Wolves And The Sheepdogs
THE WOLVES thus addressed the Sheepdogs: "Why should you, who are like us in so many things, not be entirely of one mind with us, and live with us as brothers should? We differ from you in one point only. We live in freedom, but you bow down to and slave for men, who in return for your services flog you with whips and put collars on your necks. They make you also guard their sheep, and while they eat the mutton throw only the bones to you. If you will be persuaded by us, you will give us the sheep, and we will enjoy them in common, till we all are surfeited." The Dogs listened favorably to these proposals, and, entering the den of the Wolves, they were set upon and torn to pieces.

 

[Tgace]

The Wolves and the Sheep
Fables by Aesop

"WHY SHOULD there always be this fear and slaughter between us?"
said the Wolves to the Sheep. "Those evil-disposed Dogs have
much to answer for. They always bark whenever we approach you
and attack us before we have done any harm. If you would only
dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of
peace and reconciliation between us." The Sheep, poor silly
creatures, were easily beguiled and dismissed the Dogs, whereupon
the Wolves destroyed the unguarded flock at their own pleasure.

 

[Tgace]

The Wolves and the Dogs
Fables by Aesop

"WHY should there be strife between us?" said the Wolves to the
Sheep. "It is all owing to those quarrelsome dogs. Dismiss them,
and we shall have peace."

"You seem to think," replied the Sheep, "that it is an easy thing
to dismiss dogs. Have you always found it so?"

 

[Tgace]

"And, if you need cops—armed men and women prepared to use force to protect you against the most violent armed criminals that roam abroad in society—well, sad to say, the same need for self-sufficiency is stark. Welcome, not just to American society, but to the Planet Earth.

Face the reality. Perhaps the meek will inherit the earth, but not until those of us who ain’t meek are done with it.

It is not a choice of being predator or prey. A lot of people miss that, including one otherwise intelligent reporter who went through my school recently. If you become a wolf to ward off the other wolves, you have defeated your own purpose. You have, as my generation learned to say, destroyed the village in order to save it.

No. The ideal is to be the sheepdog. You did not come with intent to harm. You came with intent to protect. If the wolf approaches your flock, you will bark to warn him off. If he comes closer, you will threaten with your more aggressive presence. And then, if he is stupid enough to attack, you will do what instinct tells you to do to a predator who is trying to tear your lamb’s throat out.

You will interdict the predator. And you will do what you must to stop him from harming that lamb, even if you must tear his throat out. "

-Massad Ayoob

Isnt about being a cop or soldier here.....

 

[Flatlander]

And, one might wish to re-examine the connections of that analogy to repressive thought across the political spectrum.

Could you please clarify those for me, and the viewers at home? I'm not familiar specifically with the context of these "connections."

Irrespective and ignorant of those connections, I remain quite in agreement with the analogous theme. It seems to me that the main contention with it is that, due to the "perceptible connotations" of the analogy, its fundamental theme is invalid.

The perceptible connotations would, by my interpretation of the counter position, include within their definition a reference of: One with a position of power over others intentionally and knowingly decieves, and/or profits, at the negative benefit of the people or community being served.

My question is, does the analogy become valid in theme if no intent can be reasonably shown to exist; particularly in retrospect, given no ill act having ever been committed? For example, a WWII vet? Which is to say, out of a sense of duty, rather than greed, lust, or avarice?

Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it.
~Plato

 

[rmcrobertson]

And I still don't see what the big prob is with simply saying that you're a human being with a hard job who has taken on a responsibility to protect other human beings.

Why isn't that good enough, all by itself, without the cliched analogy?

 

[Tgace]

Because the analogy isnt purely about my or anybody elses "job". As the quotes from the original speech I posted show....The speech was given to soldiers so of course it was slanted towards the audience. Its about denial/acceptance...not profession. As Grossman and I have repeatedly stated.

That and your repeated insinuation that the professions you now call honorable, are letting their "Facist" show through this simple allegorical speech...this thread would have faded away long ago. I find this speech interesting and can appreciate the intent. But other than that.....

 

[shesulsa]

Let's get this back on track. I believe the point is that the analogy (be it attractive or not) speaks to denial and acceptance of the existence of threat and danger in society (not just America but the world).

We could apply said analogy (in its proper perspective) locally, nationally, even globally.