Comments on: The battle of “For” and “Against”

By: Peter Korchnak

Peter Korchnak — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:54:59 +0000

@Beth Kanter: Thanks again for channeling the campaign as the springboard for the post. I never intended to dispute the campaign’s motivations.

@orangeguru: Thanks for the provocative comment. By couching the post in the dualism of “for” and “against” I attempted to demonstrate the fallacy of “against” thinking. My bad if I fell short.

Inasmuch as reality is a social construct, to make my contribution I’ll take the charm and naivete of positive thinking over negative thinking any day. I’ll also opt for constructive criticism over criticism for its own sake.

As long as we sit in our respective rich-country abodes, digging in the dirt will remain a theoretical exercise.

By: orangeguru

orangeguru — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:45:49 +0000

Amazing how your post shows how much you and the cause you battle are stuck in dualistic thinking and attachment slogans and ideological pairings.

Especially that addiction to “positive” thinking and “win-win”-situations is especially charming and naive. Reality doesn’t use such terms and it’s a bit more complex then such constructs and slogans. But cutting down on complexity has always been the goal of propagandists of all colours and shades, doesn’t matter if it’s for selling a car, religion, scented candles or wars.

In creating awareness and so called change so many “activists” are still adepts of Freuds appeal of lower instincts and fears that his nephew Edward Bernays has turned so successfully into PR and Marketing.

Many more serious spiritual paths (like ZEN) and the modern philosophy of Deconstruction have tried to deal with this. Many of the more serious 1960’s Hippies tried similar methods.

But most of these insights are watered down and worthless these days. Feel-good-slogans and tiny flashes of semantic insights are gobbled up by activists and politicians a like. Playing pingpong with semantics is so much easier then really digging in the dirt …

Semantic Mousetivism has become the modern form of indulgences.

By: Tresha Thorsen

Tresha Thorsen — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:18:48 +0000

Hey Peter. Good post and good distinction between terms.
I’m for compassion that sees a need and meets in right in the midst. We’re gonna need a balance. This current situation finds as many as can support being for helping our children stay fed.
And biggies have rallied because it is that important. But what’s a biggie cept lotsa little me’s and little’s you’s coming together to promote what is right for our fellowman/woman/child.
I deeply value the probing FOR long term solutions.
How bout we choose to be FOR both the immediate and the long term.
We just well may be building the team in it FOR the long haul.
I know this comment’s a bit surface, but I’m for supporting anyone who takes a step forward to support his/her/our neighbor. Here’s to the day when we can shout out “No more food is needed. They’re full.’

By: Beth Kanter

Beth Kanter — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:05:58 +0000

Great post! Good points!

I’ll take the pledge to make sure that children have food and don’t starve – so they can survive, do well in school, and be healthy.

Thanks for your post. I didn’t design the campaign theme – I just wanted to help support the idea. I’ll pass it along to Share Our Strength