Understood

every language we know of has words for one and two and some, just like all have words for live and die.
https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/schools-departments/natural-semantic-metalanguage/what-is-nsm/semantic-primes — Lionino

Thank you.
But for your reference to be effective in demonstrating what appears to be your position on this, you'd have to accept that all of the primes are inherent in Nature and none are derived from post-lingual human constructions. Are you? Some of those primes seem to be questionable as to their "ontologies."

To answer briefly,
1. 'nature" in whichever way we define/understand it through mind, is included as one of the fictions. I cannot know that Nature is real. It's just that I think most philosophical pursuits of the problem make it worse when they focus on MInd/Form/Spirit/Dasein as real when for every other member of our universe, it is Nature alone that is "present". Descartes, after his impressive acrobatics, concluded I think...But he started in the place which poses the problem in the first place, not the presence of his breath, but in the re-presentation of his thoughts. The "I" thinking is already a fiction.. He should have concluded, Body breathes, Body is.

2. Sankara, though closer, also got lost in the fiction with the necessity of Brahman to "oppose" maya. "Oppose" is only necessary in the system regulating Mind. And yes, how do we even dare to speak of a Reality vs Mind when, as you say, there isn't knowledge of the Absolute, since we end up with no grounds for the fiction/reality distinction? We cannot speak. Speaking belongs to the Fiction. I am not suggesting that our "access" to the reality, like everything else, be mediated through the Fiction. I am suggesting that the Reality cannot be "known" in the sense that we understand knowledge. If we "want" to "access" Truth or Reality, as distinct from our constructions, we must, and can only, do so in be-ing. Don't expect me to be able to answer the question further, because, as it turns out, I'm already just reconstructing fiction. But if anything, don't look to Sankara, don't even look to Mahayana epistemology and metaphysics. Look to Zazen, not Zen philosophy, but the actual sitting in Zazen.Maybe that process allows for brief, timeless (because free from the construction of time) "moments" of Real be-ing.

If, on the other hand, there is no quantity in reality, then this will entail the fact that there is no plurality of coexistent psyches: with this directly resulting in solipsism - wherein the one solipsist by unexplained means "fictionalizes" everything, quantity very much included. — javra

Solipsism--only one psyche exists (in Reality)

What about the position that psyche--including its constructions--doesn't exist at all in Reality? Nihilism? No. Nature exists in/is Reality. Mind is a system "reflected" in the organic body, which functions as it does because it evolved, inter alia, a logic that it must be real. But it is not. So no one mind only; but rather, no mind. Just the be-ing body.

And we intuitively "know" this. If we didn't, there wouldn't be these challenges in philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics including ontology.

Bear with me then, I might need to think it through. But it seems, that while I recognize the contradiction of submitting Mind cannot know Reality, but only construct a (Fictional) reality, still I'll state a hypothesis about Reality, at least as I understand that fiction.

Is the so called real world, Reality, and not the world I am submitting we construct in Mind? And if so is Reality devoid of representation, as you are suggesting?

Isn't it devoid of representation by so called definition? Isn't Reality present, by "definition" (the past has vanished, the furure has not happened). Reality is necessarily that which is, and not that which is re-presented? The instance of re-presentation is the irretrievable loss of presence, and Reality.

And you might say, I meant that within Reality, representations exist, the lion's roar, etc. But the simplest way to adress that is we run from a lion's roar, its a drive, a bird is attracted to another's "dance," it's a drive. The representation status is a construction of mind. While the so thought of, "real world" of Mind may have math and representations, and we are inescapably attuned to that, Reality does not anywhere have representations and math hiding in it somewhere, waiting, like everyone from Plato to Heidegger have said, to be gleaned out by us through some real process of becoming. We are not a special species with a God given spirit (who else then, but God?) called consciousness. Consciousness is a structure of Fiction, in perpetual construction of Fiction with effects on Nature through the human body and human culture.

We're that super weird conceited ape who somehow evolved its internal sense of imaging and memory, into an autonomous System which has taken over our organic aware-ing. So much are we attuned with that system that we invent theology, create civilizations, and math too, and insist that they are real, that uniquely we discovered them in Nature, instead of proudly admitting we made them all with our brains.

Quantity only exists in Nature because we displace Nature with quantity, etc. Think of quantity without reference to any form of representation, but on its own, in its allegedly pure and essential form as it supposedly inhabits Reality. You can't, that's absurd, right? The very thinking utilizes representations. Then why do we shy away from acknowledging that our uniquely human Conscious experiences are structured by representations and as such, they are not ultimately Real?

Dumplings!

Sorry:up:

There are eastern philosophies which work, but the fact that they start from the assumption of God, gods, deity, Western philosophy just doesn’t go there, or reduces it to some peculiarity of the human mind. — Punshhh

Let's be fair to Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. The former, no god. Tge latter, no more religious a god than Hegel, or arguably, Heidegger.

Have a good day at work.

Hence, to my mind, the only way of appraising all maths as strictly within us and thus as having nothing to do with the quote unquote "real world" is by appraising the "real world" to be fully devoid of quantity. — javra

If you replaced the word math, with symbols, or representations, would the above also hold true for you?

A quick addendum, and I'll leave it.

One of the ways we arrive at truths, as you know, is by convention. This is a powerful structure for triggering the settlement commonly called belief.

I don't know about you, but when it comes to math beyond a Senior highschool level, I cannot test my beliefs, and must rely on convention.

If you were in the same boat, (l accept likely not,) and you and I agreed, Math has some essence of The Truth of The Universe to it, what the hell would we even be talking about?

And, my point is not what you think. It's not to say we should stay out of things we cannot be certain about. My point is tgat is what we all do, necessarily, all the time.
We construct Fiction, and settle upon the functional places, whether because of convention, reason, or fantasy; all of them also Fictions.

Short reply:

Unless I misunderstand, (in which case, sorry) a pathological insistence that Darwin cannot be applied to Mind is only evidence of folly, or at best dogma, not evidence that it cannot be.

And, yes, Mind is ultimately empty. It is not Natural, but being empty, it ultimately is not Real, either. It's a Fiction made of fleeting images, applied as Signifiers to code the Body to feel (not as in emotions, as in those organic process which we organically sense) and act. Not dualism or physicality, but a qualified physicalism: Body/Nature real, Mind exists as a separate "entity" but is Ultimately empty and fleeting.

And as for how does it displace Nature? That's exactly what it does. There was a now mythical, time when a human might have looked at an apple and seen what a (mythical) equally intelligent animal sees. But you and I cannot see apple without it being structured by the chains of Signifiers, images in your memory, structuring that experience for you as seeing an apple. In Nature I.e. in Reality, you or that mythical animal wouldn't see apple; as a Real Being, you would just be be-ing; not seeing apple, just see-ing, an incessant present, not chopped up by the structures of Mind into successive objects and moments of time.

In fairness to this post, our experiences, all of them including MATH, as amazing as they are, are Fictional constructions which, in effect, displace Reality. There's no essence, Spirit or being behind Mind, nor its constructions. You already are that Being, as a living body. We just want it to be the Fiction that's real. We want it to be Mind. Hence everything from Plato to Hegel.

Ha! Fascinating. Thank you. Cannot draw conclusions from a glance, but I'll read further. I wasn't aware of that hypothesis.

Maybe unwittingly I am (like I said, need more info) but I think I'm going deeper. Not just cultures are influenced by their linguistic structures, but Mind, collectively, and particularly, is structured by (very loosely) lingustic-like structures. Our "reality" is those structures displacing our natural organic aware-ing.

To be admittedly simplistic, I hear "terrorist," (call that a Signifier) and like Pavlov's dogs it triggers other Signifiers, which following a dialectical dance, trigger organic feelings, which trigger more Signiers which form ideologies, triggering more Signifiers, triggering choices and actions. (I rushed that)

To view either side in this tragic conflict the way a given individual does, they necessarily have to have been triggered to that position by a series of Signifiers, not by anything appearing to them organically in Nature, not presumably by any revelation from a god etc.

I'm not judging that "fact" about Mind, in any way remotely nihilistically. It works amazingly. To wit, people generally eat, and we landed on the moon.

I'm just throwing some new Signifiers into the fire, certainly because (so-called) I had been triggered by Signifiers input in (so-called) me.

I'm suggesting if we are interested in being authentic in our approach to it, be conscious of the structures operating in Mind triggering feelings, pleasure or pain, causing you to fixate on ideology and make dysfunctional choices.

Constructed out of what? Or is it creation ex nihilo? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Short reply: Constructed (like everything else displacing Nature with Consciousness) out of images stored in memories, developing over maybe hundreds of millennia by the same or a similar Darwinian process familiar enough that it requires no describing. What is functional is adopted and input then revised by future generations , so far, reaching the extremely functional stage it has today.

No, not ex nihilo, yet, ultimately empty and nothing. A useful Fiction, like the rest of Mind and its constructions.

Why not that?

Agreed. I like your example regarding circle.
I wish I was proficient enough in math to dig deeper for artifacts of math's artifice. But I chuckle at where it may have taken off: this idea that Math pre-exists our constructions.
When Plato has the slave draw the triangle proving forever the pre-existence of that Form. As if the slave didn't figured it out because he was born into a culture that had triangle constructed as a useful signifier.

Rock on! :meh:

It goes beyond philosophy in the strict sense in that it relies on religious, or theological traditions, which are adopted as a framework on which to construct one’s enquiry. — Punshhh

Or is it that they (these mystical schools) have profound philosophical roots, only to have been reconstructed as religious, by the so called religious? What influence did the gods have on Socrates? Christ on Hegel or even Heidegger?

Or, even if the chronology is backward, and what started as religion, evolved into profound philosophy; why should that discourage serious philosophical enquiry?

Either way, it's possible that Western Philosophy "proper" (with some exceptions) only avoids these schools because of prejudice concerning connections with religion. And that, to the former's detriment.

In spite of our desire to the contrary, Philosophy is not some universal, pre-human absolute. Just as Philosophy defines everything else, it defines itself. Why should it necessarily be restricted by the walls it constructs? Or, to get to the pith and substance of your statement, which I am taking the liberty of (mis)interpreting, why shouldn't philosophy explore the mystical? Does it really restrict itself to Truth? Or is Truth necessarily arrived at through reason?

"Look at the fish swimming about,” said Chuang Tzu, “They are really enjoying themselves.” “You are not a fish,” replied the friend, “So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves.” “You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?

The way we generally view, and thus speak, choose, act, re Israel and Gaza, is not open, and authentic, but autonomously driven by our collective Language. To simplify, look at some Signifiers we are fixated on with obvious triggers in the manifest world (i.e., triggering feelings, feelings to ideologies to choices/action): "terrorist" "anti-semitic" "genocide". It is obvious how, on their own, these go through the process whereby they ultimately trigger choices and actions.

The point I'm trying to make :

Because the Language of things like Human Rights, International Law, Foreign Occupation, Authoritarian, Fascist, trigger us in specific ways, more functional approaches to Gaza cannot arise.

Take Israel's response to October 7, and Hamas. Assume, as I'm willing to, that God help them, they're defending themselves against a brutal enemy. They swear to God, they're trying to adhere to international law. It's a challenge. You try and do better.

But 21,000 children dead; and countless others, owing to physical injuries and mental trauma, might wish they had died.

So, really? Because collectively we are fixated on the Language of International Law, we cause Israel to have to behave like a nation state, use a recognized military, and only bomb, occupy, mop up, all the while doing their best not to harm civilians, while openly, we accept that there must be such casualties.

What?

Because we are fixated on words like, Authoritarian, foreign occupation, and fascist, Israel cannot have done what likely would have saved 21000 children, and countless others, including, their homes, and billions in reconstruction. They couldn't do what El Salvador's guy did. Call Hammas criminals. Send in an army of police to round up anyone even smelling like Hamas. Enter their properties without a warrant, search and even rip shit up. Give them quick and basic trials, the clearly innocent will be released. Everyone else, the death penalty.

Our fixation on Language makes that sound abhorrent. And I agree. It sounds abhorrent. But note, even when the police are ripping shit up, arresting grandpa, and even shoving grandma around, to get her out of the way, no child is really harmed.

And the conventional way; the way so far, endorsed--with obvious cognitive dissonance--by the entire liberal democratic world, openly accepts that children will be harmed. And guess what? They are. But 21000 children? How's that better than a police state rounding up criminals without regard for their civil rights or due process?

While I dread both, if forced to choose, give me a police state over the massacre of the innocents.
...


Wait.


?



Nah.

We could have come up with a whole different numbering system than the one we have now. — L'éléphant

I agree. I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not.

Palestinians could surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel in exchange for peace?
How many children are YOU willing to sacrifice — neomac

:up:

I realize you don't speak for Israel, but if that's the price to pay to save the children, while I personally might be willing to pay it, is that not a brutal ransom to exact? Palestinians, in your own words, must surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel to save the children?

As I've said before, all judgement aside, there are functional ways to approach this tragedy and there are dysfunctional ways. Hamas can be the monsters that they appear to be, and still, that doesn't mean the ransom you offered would be helpful, let alone justified.

Don't you think?

Nice. Thank you!

As for Sartre, since @Gnomon references him, yes, Consciousness is supported by a Being which is not itself. But contra Sartre, that Being is the Organic Being, the human animal.

What Consciousness is, is the system of autonomously moving images which displaces the Organic aware-ing of that Being, with the former’s constructions, empty of Real Being, and fleeting, Fiction.

The Dialectic that Sartre observed goes beyond Subject and Object, Self and Other. Like Freud, Sartre was astute enough to observe a Dialectical dynamic to Consciousness, but fixated on the most obvious Dialectic accessible to one in pursuit of an existential or phenomenological Ontology: subject/object (just as for Freud, in pursuit of Neuroses, the Sexual Conflicts were most manifest).

But dialectic is not limited, in Consciousness, to Self and Other. All of Mind moves through a dialectic; Signifiers autonomously competing to be heard, only surfacing at the arrangement most fitting for that specific locus in an individual Mind, and the locus of that Mind in History, or Universal Mind.

Even when my Body’s vision (sensation) is directed at a mundane cup; it does not “see” the Real “object,” like an equally intelligent animal might see; or, rather, it does, but there is no “object,” only see-ing and what Natural response see-ing might trigger. But with Mind, too quickly for that see-ing to be organically felt and responded to by that Real Body in aware-ing, Mind has already begun its Dialectic: Signifiers compete, and the Signifier arrangements most functional, for a given locus, surface to the aware-ing, displacing the Real Organic aware-ing with the "text", and triggering, à la Classical Conditioning, the Body to feel and or act in response to that fiction (all the while receiving those Signifiers in Narrative form, believed to be experience.).

And, only following that process, not Real, not disclosing itself to us as Real Being, but fleeting, and fictional, do I perceive that Signifier chain which won the Dialectic Dance and surfaced to Body, preassembled with belief, as that commonly shared object we call “cup.”

What is the human condition? Shit that just happens. But the point that Heidegger, Sartre, Arendt and so on are desperate to make is, ironically, right in front of our noses. We are authentic beings, not when we construct authenticity, or reflect upon what it is to be the Being of beings, or when we allow Being to disclose itself in authentic choices etc. All those things are sincerely admirable ways to follow the Narrative, just like Altruism might be, or for some, heroic sacrifice. They feed History, and thus inevitably, all of Human Consciousness (to wit, you and I). But what's already in front of our noses is we are authentic Beings, our Body is. To be that authentic Being, just be. If any details need be provided, it would be: breathe, eat, reproduce.

But, trapped in our Narrative world, we hate that idea and end up constructing bullshit out of Dialectic. And believing it. Like this.

there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. — schopenhauer1

I'll chime in further, later on, but for now, referencing your statement above, yes: not only is there almost "no reason" to do anything, but there may even be value in doing "nothing" as Heidegger implies, and certainly, as is required by Zazen. Albeit impossible due to our "entrapment" in the chattering of Fiction, there may be timeless moments where we might get a glimpse into our Natural, Organic, and Real aware-ing, by doing, so-called nothing, and thus, returning to that aware-ing

Having looked more closely at Heidegger, I get why you say,

Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics. — Joshs

But I think he shirks metaphysics, rather than overcoming it. He pretends to be doing a Classical, pre-Socratic even, ontology, an inquiry into the Being of beings, but ends up constructing his beautiful piece of architecture on par with Kant and Hegel, about Dasein, the Being of the everyday human being. And I admire it and find it useful, even liberating from some of the fixations of previous phenomenology, but I still have my concern that far from overcoming, he fell short.

Had he said, this is an "Ontology" of Human Mind, how (this mechanism of) being is constructed by it; how it constructs Time, and Handiness (and, he could have added, Logic and Reason); for their function how it is passed on in the form of History, input into every offspring, so that we are born already thrown into its world; how each particular, each individual instance of it partakes simply by being there; had he said that (which I submit, though over simplified here, except for the opening, he did, and a lot more like that) but just added, but don't ever think I am doing an Ontology of Real Being. That's not possible; any effort I make is already coming from that magical make-believe place of being thrown into a world of ready- made(s). That best I could do is give you back that world, rearranged and reconstructed so that you understand that; that afterall is all we really care about; we don't care about Truth (still my hypothetical H speaking); had that qualifier, which I believe he was conscious of, been included... Why does it matter besides the joy of the puzzle? Because if we think H or anyone has done anything other than reconstruct out of what is already there, we are at risk in believing Mind can, contra Socrates, actually know, and the many manifest problems with that....

Any so called Ontology of "Real" Being (which term and concept is itself, admittedly already a ready-made, so don't even start, Socrates), any inquiry and answer to an inquiry into Truth, can only be in be-ing.

Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.

What do you think?

A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything.

Not directly addressing the preceding discussion, but I feel it noteworthy to highlight that Human Mind, as differentiated from organic consciousness (simplified as the aware-ing which bodies--even unicellular and plants--do to varying degrees) necessarily includes self-consciousness, or the mechanism of the Subject in action. And sure, Arendt makes a worthy point, as do Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre et. al. all the way down to the daisies, and we too, with our intuition (also built in, the mechanism of belief) to "bury" the Truth about human Mind being Fictional in structure and nature, and construct some (more) positive meaning out of what's present to their recent reflections. But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.

My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities.

If Mahayana, and particularly Zen, falls under "esoteric," then, I think, simply put, the whole idea is to "transcend" philosophical thinking. What is the sound of one hand clapping must necessarily abstain, not only from logic, but from any "form" of "discursive" or other "conventional" "thinking" or "problem solving."

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
---Gotthold Lessing

Not necessarily because I would do the same, but because I think that encapsulates the human struggle in matters of philosophy. And not out of humility, but more the opposite. Presumably, Socrates told his disciples the Truth about the futility of pursuing knowledge, but Plato went off pursuing anyway. Cant blame him. It's what we do. We displace the "God given"* Truth with our constructedKnowledge.
*I don't mean scripture nor revelation. I mean we are already the Truth. Like every organism, the Born Truth.

AND

"Not the wind, not the flag. It is the mind that is moving!"
---Huineng, the 6th Chinese Patriarch of Chan

For reasons which I cannot disclose. And I mean literally cannot; not, "not at liberty to".

Yes. Worrisome and likely true. Again, not saying I support Hamas. Nor am I saying I oppose Israel's right to defend. I was too careless in the comment you quoted. My point was and remains: care should be taken, especially in matters of intense conflict, with the Language we use. Obviously, that goes for me too.

Ok. I don't wish to argue that all of the middle east shares our western values. But you have provided info on Saudi Arabia. A state by the way, both the west and Israel are eager to make friends with. That does not tell us that the entire middle east is the same. Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit.

But truly, I get your perspective, even respect and share your contempt for sexism etc.

I'm just saying. . .

Ok, great. You're not advocating for genocide. Which countries in the middle east force women to wear burqas, force them to be escorted by men and are abused by their husbands, by the way? I mean, if that, as you cited, is a good reason for Israel to clear out the rat's nest. Do the North African countries do that? Does Syria, Lebanon, does Occupied Palestine? Jordan? Iraq? Are burqas legally required in these countries? Is abusing wives condoned in these countries? Are there laws in these countries requiring women to be escorted by men? I mean, excluding the gulf states, which, besides Iran, also do not legally enforce burqas/hijabs, these are the countries that make up the Middle East. Maybe you've indirectly advanced the point I was trying to make. Careful use of Language is a constructive path to resolution. Careless language is either ignorantly unhelpful, or simply a deliberate weapon for further destruction.

Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words. — schopenhauer1

The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living. To say it is anything more—even to say, as Zen might, that it is to live unattached to the comings and goings of the Narrative self, the fiction—reflects still the narrative’s desperate hold upon me.

Yes. From where I'm looking, we're on the same page.

we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" — schopenhauer1

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter.

I recognize your point and agree with it. My point was certainly not a contradiction. To be clear, violence is never the advisable approach, nor justified. Another way to express my point is to ask, is it harmony or victory we are after? If it's the former, remember to use Language functionally, as a constructive tool, in its promotion. If it's the latter, admit that and carry on using Language as a weapon. I sincerely hope you didn't receive my comment in the spirit of the latter.

:ok: :ok:

Language controls the world. Words are not just potent signifiers; they construct our emotions and beliefs. Like code, it programs us. And it requires another code to--not "de-program", but--reprogram us. I am not weighing in on the politics or morality of the issue in Israel/Palestine. This is not a judgement but an observation of what is often the first insurmountable barrier to any honest attempt at harmony.

Perhaps it's simple, and the Language holds no power save and except to describe the actions. Perhaps anyone who uses violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government to further political, social, or ideological objectives is fittingly deserving of the moniker "terrorist" period. Perhaps any suggestion otherwise is manipulative propaganda, designed to control our thoughts.

I reiterate that I am not taking a stand on the two sides, nor am I condoning the violence. But I may be addressing the first necessary step to a final resolution of any similar problem: the care used in Language (notwithstanding the anticipated ire of those who, in the name of free speech, pretend to barf at any mention of political correctness).

If the 17th century African's rebelled; escaped in large numbers from a plantation, and massacred the white civilians occupying their and nearby plantations, would we call that Terrorist today? What about if Jewish captives of the Nazi’s, escaped en masse, a concentration camp, and massacred the civilians in nearby Mansions, including, god forbid, even the Nazi children out in harms way, skipping and living it up behind the walls of their fathers’ death prisons? Or the indigenous First Nations of the Americas pushed out of their homes by the fascist/racist expansion of their colonialist occupiers? Or the indigenous Africans of South Africa violently reacting to Apartheid. Today, would they be called terrorists?

And what about the Pxxxxxxxxxxs?