Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 Lockhart wrote: Dear , I am not cynical, just realistic. I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat (well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more courage than war? Really, that's just silly. I don't know if war makes one "safe" - I suppose it does temporarily, provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safe is the known ability and willingness to wage war and win. Want peace? Prepare for war. True 1500 years ago, true now, will be true for as long as there are human beings. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government..... best, Dan "You find somebody to love in this world, you better hand on tooth and nail. The wolf is always at the door." The Eagles Dan says: >>Marxism couldn't do it, free love couldn't do it, the U.N. couldn't do it, even rock-and-roll couldn't do it - now the WWW will do it, eh?<< --Funny how that kind of cynicism doesn't stop people from thinking war will make the world safer, eh? Perhaps connectivity takes more courage than killing. Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 > > I am not cynical, just realistic. Friendship requiring > more courage than war? Really, that's just silly. Hi, Dan - One " man's " meat is another " man's " poison, eh wot? My father was a paraplegic and my mother hired someone to take care of us kids when I was born. [Yes paraplegics can procreate -- if they do it soon enough...?!] It was during the Depression. The woman was from Germany and the hiring agency apologised that she didn't speak English very well. My mother said that was great, then her kids would be bilingual. So that's how I happen to keep thinking partly " in German " . The English word " silly " comes from the same etymological root as the German root " selig " which in n-language-style days was translated as BlessEd. Maybe this is yin/yang stuff? Two different kinds and flavors of " courage " ? And/or two different versions of " realism " and " cynicism " ? What " thinkest thou " ? > I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis > tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. There's no law, Dan, that says you can't " convert " . But are you prepared to keep a kosher house? marte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 Dan says: >>I am not cynical, just realistic.<< --A couple hundred years ago, "being realistic" would mean accepting slavery as the way things always were and were meant to be. But eventually, the experiences of slaves became known to people who were free, and when it became impossible to keep separate the worlds of slaves and the public, a watershed moment erased slavery from the public mind as an acceptable institution. When war affects enough of us personally or psychically, we will do something about it. War isn't something that just happens. It's a product of communities remaining separate and alien to one another, spreading stories and demonizing propaganda until what has been separate must come together in a spark of violence or a spark of understanding. One way or another, compartmentalized social systems end up crashing into each other, and we are insane if we believe we can or should do nothing to make the breaking of separate bubbles less painful than it tends to be when both masses of humanity are asleep at the wheel. Sometimes "being realistic" means acknowledging a shared reality that is dysfunctional and quite unreal. When insanity has real effects, being insane becomes "realistic" and it tends to happen so slowly that we don't realize it's happening. There are many possibilities for changing that dynamic, all depending on people recognizing as real what is currently squeezed out of the public mind. We are at war with the Islamic world because the Islamic world has been unreal to us, and vice-versa. We judge them by what we see on TV, and they judge us by the same measure. That is an insane reality that cannot continue, nature will override it one way or another. Through war or through the mutual recognition of humanity by people who have been unreal to one another for generations.>>I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat (well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more courage than war? Really, that's just silly.<< --It takes more courage to override a mindset that is comforting than to continue living within that mindset. We Americans have had the idea that our government can protect us through policies that alienate us from the rest of the world. That mindset cannot continue and still be in balance with nature. It takes courage to step away from the herd, no matter what the herd is doing. It's funny how the alternative to war is always seen as a fuzzy, huggy encounter group. That seems to me a way to neuter the real accomplishments of nonviolence advocates over the years and to portray those who learn alternatives as "not quite real men". Nonviolence is not the same as passivity. It's a form of confrontation between worlds that are stuck between the impossible dichotomy of silence vs. cruelty. It's an encounter, but not an encounter group in the fuzzy, huggy sense. >>I don't know if war makes one "safe" - I suppose it does temporarily, provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safe is the known ability and willingness to wage war and win.<< --That is a comforting mindset that nature will not allow to continue. It is equivalent to "slavery works, as long as we keep slave rebellions down". Our economic security alone depends on war staying within certain bounds. We can't live the way we live and continue living within the belief that winning wars is the only way we can approach societies we don't understand and that don't understand us. >>Want peace? Prepare for war.<< --You assume there is only one way to prepare for war. But will you be doing any of the fighting, or do you only live within the comforting mindset that someone else will be willing to die for your safety?>>I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government.....<< --That also sounds to me like a comforting notion that has little to do with the reality of fighting and dying. Identification with ethnic, religious and political groups will no longer keep humanity safe, and if we don't change how we approach the world, a younger generation will. One way or another, what doesn't work in nature is abolished. War is not working as well as it once did, killing far more civiilians than soldiers, and it will eventually escape the boundaries required to keep it acceptable and compatible with our way of life. Those who cannot change a dysfunctional mindset will attempt to impose it on the young, until the young throw it off in disgust. Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 marte wrote: Dear marte, I had in mind the ordinary english meaning of "silly," i.e., slightly foolish > > I am not cynical, just realistic. Friendship requiring > more courage than war? Really, that's just silly. Hi, Dan - One "man's" meat is another "man's" poison, eh wot? My father was a paraplegic and my mother hired someone to take care of us kids when I was born. [Yes paraplegics can procreate -- if they do it soon enough...?!] It was during the Depression. The woman was from Germany and the hiring agency apologised that she didn't speak English very well. My mother said that was great, then her kids would be bilingual. So that's how I happen to keep thinking partly "in German". The English word "silly" comes from the same etymological root as the German root "selig" which in n-language-style days was translated as BlessEd. Maybe this is yin/yang stuff? Two different kinds and flavors of "courage"? And/or two different versions of "realism" and "cynicism"? What "thinkest thou"? > I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis > tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. There's no law, Dan, that says you can't "convert". I could, but it's not the same as being dyed in the wool. But are you prepared to keep a kosher house? It would probably do me all the good in the world. Best, Dan marte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2006 Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 Dear Dan, The longer I live, the more I read and think, meditate and listen, the more I believe you are absolutely right. It is idealistic, and perverse to my mind to believe that human nature will change anytime soon.----- As long as any ego feels unsafe or insecure, wars will be fought. We are not going to change millions of years of history by using our reasons for not fighting. Reason really has little to do with why we human beings go to war, now or ever. To think we can change a little here and a little there, or maybe scare ourselves to death with possible outcomes, is totally insupportable in the history of mankind. Good old Jung has the only possible answer...we change the consciousness of people 1x1x1....Most of those who bewail our warlike behavior are never going to find this wonderfully reasonable, loving milieu they dream about. What we need are honest men who can face the terrible fact that through our psychology, religions, economics and theories about who and what mankind is, and how it got that way, there will never be anything but short periods of "non-war" as society seems bent on believing that there is a scarcity of the earth's goods, and that therefore human beings will continue to fight each other for the little they believe there is. There is no known methode I know of which will erase fear from this world anytime soon. No amount of reasoning about why one needen't be afraid, will ever work as long as we do not understand ourselves and those we fear. It is so idealistic to actually believe that we as human beings can change ourselves by will alone. Never happened yet, and it may only happen through a raising of consciousness in the world, which because we all skrewed up so over thousands of years, will take a one on one relationship to change. WE have our peace marches, we have our our leaders who try to mesmerise by sheer will and playacting, we have our church leaders, some of whom are actually working toward tolerance, and we have our innocent unthinking public wanting to be assured. And then we have our fanatics, our meglomaniacs, our corporate leaders who want more and more of less and less...and the old in the military who thirst for past glory, and the young who have to prove how brave they are. It will always be a job for the few who are actually aware and conscious to remind the rest that no "quick fix" will ever do. We must struggle 1x1x1 to undo the damage we have made for ourselves by our grossely incorrect understanding of human nature, nature, and G-d. perhaps a dose of reality will hit those who still think we can pull ourselves up to "peacefulness" by talk,dialog, collective thinking, and an absurd notion of the invincibility of man. Sadly, you are so right. We can not even be scared into stopping our warfare. Maybe some will be able to be a light in the gaining of consciousness for the rest. But only when we stop relying on your own great intellects and create a world where fear does not need to rule. Toni Original Message ----- From: Dan and Watkins To: JUNG-FIRE Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:02 PM Subject: Re: cynicism Lockhart wrote:Dear ,I am not cynical, just realistic.I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat (well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more courage than war? Really, that's just silly.I don't know if war makes one "safe" - I suppose it does temporarily, provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safe is the known ability and willingness to wage war and win. Want peace? Prepare for war. True 1500 years ago, true now, will be true for as long as there are human beings.I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government.....best,Dan"You find somebody to love in this world, you better hand on tooth and nail.The wolf is always at the door." The Eagles Dan says: >>Marxism couldn't do it, free love couldn't do it, the U.N. couldn't do it, even rock-and-roll couldn't do it - now the WWW will do it, eh?<< --Funny how that kind of cynicism doesn't stop people from thinking war will make the world safer, eh? Perhaps connectivity takes more courage than killing. Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 TONI – you are back! Thank G-d. fa From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of vienna19311 Sent: 22 July 2006 22:34 To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: cynicism Dear Dan, The longer I live, the more I read and think, meditate and listen, the more I believe you are absolutely right. It is idealistic, and perverse to my mind to believe that human nature will change anytime soon.----- As long as any ego feels unsafe or insecure, wars will be fought. We are not going to change millions of years of history by using our reasons for not fighting. Reason really has little to do with why we human beings go to war, now or ever. To think we can change a little here and a little there, or maybe scare ourselves to death with possible outcomes, is totally insupportable in the history of mankind. Good old Jung has the only possible answer...we change the consciousness of people 1x1x1....Most of those who bewail our warlike behavior are never going to find this wonderfully reasonable, loving milieu they dream about. What we need are honest men who can face the terrible fact that through our psychology, religions, economics and theories about who and what mankind is, and how it got that way, there will never be anything but short periods of " non-war " as society seems bent on believing that there is a scarcity of the earth's goods, and that therefore human beings will continue to fight each other for the little they believe there is. There is no known methode I know of which will erase fear from this world anytime soon. No amount of reasoning about why one needen't be afraid, will ever work as long as we do not understand ourselves and those we fear. It is so idealistic to actually believe that we as human beings can change ourselves by will alone. Never happened yet, and it may only happen through a raising of consciousness in the world, which because we all skrewed up so over thousands of years, will take a one on one relationship to change. WE have our peace marches, we have our our leaders who try to mesmerise by sheer will and playacting, we have our church leaders, some of whom are actually working toward tolerance, and we have our innocent unthinking public wanting to be assured. And then we have our fanatics, our meglomaniacs, our corporate leaders who want more and more of less and less...and the old in the military who thirst for past glory, and the young who have to prove how brave they are. It will always be a job for the few who are actually aware and conscious to remind the rest that no " quick fix " will ever do. We must struggle 1x1x1 to undo the damage we have made for ourselves by our grossely incorrect understanding of human nature, nature, and G-d. perhaps a dose of reality will hit those who still think we can pull ourselves up to " peacefulness " by talk,dialog, collective thinking, and an absurd notion of the invincibility of man. Sadly, you are so right. We can not even be scared into stopping our warfare. Maybe some will be able to be a light in the gaining of consciousness for the rest. But only when we stop relying on your own great intellects and create a world where fear does not need to rule. Toni Original Message ----- From: Dan and Watkins To: JUNG-FIRE Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:02 PM Subject: Re: cynicism Lockhart wrote: Dear , I am not cynical, just realistic. I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat (well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more courage than war? Really, that's just silly. I don't know if war makes one " safe " - I suppose it does temporarily, provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safe is the known ability and willingness to wage war and win. Want peace? Prepare for war. True 1500 years ago, true now, will be true for as long as there are human beings. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government..... best, Dan " You find somebody to love in this world, you better hand on tooth and nail. The wolf is always at the door. " The Eagles Dan says: >>Marxism couldn't do it, free love couldn't do it, the U.N. couldn't do it, even rock-and-roll couldn't do it - now the WWW will do it, eh?<< --Funny how that kind of cynicism doesn't stop people from thinking war will make the world safer, eh? Perhaps connectivity takes more courage than killing. Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Dan says: >>I am not cynical, just realistic.<< --Being realistic in a world where people behave in insane ways can make you crazy. Sometimes you have to be unrealistic, do something new, and hope it catches on. If you were talking to Gandhi before he became an activist, you'd be one of the people whose cynicism moved him to do what he did. >>I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat(well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more couragethan war? Really, that's just silly.<< --Encounter groups seem to be stereotyped as hug-fests where everyone sympathizes and talks about feelings and nobody does anything "manly". Some encounter groups require that you confront in yourself what you find easier to criticize in others. That DOES take courage. Very few people on the planet will confront themselves if they're engaging in self-deception, regardless of their views on war and peace. There are Evangelical Christian male encounter groups which are much more "huggy-teary", and I don't have a problem with them if they help men deal with emotions they'd normally repress. Why should people to the left of you be embarrassed by anything similar? Now, if you're talking about the "peace movement", which includes but is not limited to encounter groups, you're using a very broad brush to paint a very diverse group. Peace groups range from somewhat less than peaceful far-left agitators to very evolved mediators, nonviolent activists and reconciliation workers. You could even go further and say that people who advocate war are pro-peace, since the goal of war is to create stability for those wealthy enough to pay for the required weapons or persuasive enough to make others pay for them. They want peace (or will settle for a controlled burn) so that the market doesn't collapse, so their kids don't get drafted, so they can keep driving their Hummers. The best on the Right are not "warmongers" but people who believe war is like tooth decay, better done sooner than later, and have a pragmatic desire to remove people from the process so that peace can happen. They are part of the "peace movement", although not necessarily trusted or agreed with by other peace groups (anyone who advocates killing some group of people to solve a problem risks shadow projection and an authoritarian complex). The only people who are truly "anti-peace" are those who wage war not with the intent to create stability or democracy, but to eliminate an enemy viewed in broad genetic or religious terms. Everyone is against genocide. Let's just say that you and I have different ideas about what needs to be emphasized in order to create peace and stability. Some monkeys emphasize their ability to beat their chests while others wage war. Others are cowards like me, trying to find more subtle ways to rid the world of evil. We're on the same side, and we're both monkeys. >>I don't know if war makes one "safe" - I suppose it does temporarily,provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safeis the known ability and willingness to wage war and win.<< --What makes one safe is a rich web of social and business ties between two cultures. Neoconservatives have a think tank theory that wars are most likely to erupt along the boundaries where free trade bumps against insular, authoritarian cultures without a thriving middle class. That's not a bad theory. The more business ties between two cultures (assuming they're not predatory and exploitative), and the more civilian social ties, the more likely each side will accurately understand the motives and decisions of the other side. We don't understand the Islamic world and it doesn't understand us. Even Bush, with all the mistakes he's made and all the attempts to spin them as successes, is attempting to create a climate where information and human energy can flow between cultures and decrease the probabily of authoritarian fundamentalists and saber-rattlers being accepted and promoted by the population. Unfortunately, the Islamic world believes we want to destroy their way of life, in the same way Evangelical Christians believe Hollywood and gay marriage are conspiring to destroy their families. In the same way Neoconservatives believe liberals want to erode our strength as a nation. It's all the same shadow game. When we see that, we do what Jung wanted us to do. When we believe it's as simple as eliminating a threat by eliminating a group of people, we miss Jung entirely. Hezbollah needs to be marginalized and disarmed, or forced by public pressure to change their mandate and accept Israel's existence. Hamas also needs to accept Israel's existence, in order for negotiations to make any sense to Israelis. It's unreasonable to allow extremism to take the place of compromise when compromise is the only possible way to get anything done. Each side justifies putting extremists at the tip of the spear, because they're afraid and they want someone to blame if things go disastrously wrong. The solution is not for another authoritarian leader with a final solution to try to "fix" everything. The solution is for more people to get involved and communicate across lines, even if it's painful, even if it means listening to falsehoods and acknowledging fear when it seems unjustified. As long as we shut out the voices of people across the planet while trying to manage the planet and retain control over trade routes, we're on the same path as the Roman Empire. Even Jesus wouldn't endorse our policies if he came back. He'd say, "What part of 'love your enemy' was so difficult to comprehend? First you shut out the moderates and portray Arabs and Muslims as villains in movies, then you crack down on the extremists without having any real human connection to the people you claim you're trying to free from tyranny. Is that any kind of plan?" We need to confront our collective shadow, and part of that shadow was the demonization of Muslims and Arabs in media and in our own consciousness. It's not that there aren't violent fascist groups in the Islamic world. There are, and they need to be addressed. But shooting Hitler would not have been the way to deal with Hitler before he took power. Addressing the fear and resentment in the public would have made Hitler redundant. Having a more honest conversation, not ABOUT Muslims and Arabs, but with them, would accomplish more than eliminating Hezbollah, leaving thousands of outraged civilians and no doubt a huge number of lawsuits against Israel, not to mention a strengthening of antisemitism in the world and an increased likelihood of a suitase nuke being set off in Tel Aviv somewhere down the road. >>Want peace? Prepare for war.<< --Want war? Be willing to look, up close, at the consequences of war, and engage in sane long-term planning rather than knee-jerk retaliation and clampdowns that backfire. It's easy for anyone to say, "I support the troops", just as it's easy for people to say "peace now". Having a position is not the same as knowing what is happening to people on all sides of conflict, in realtime, with recognition of their humanity and not merely the armchair general's strategic verbal brain. We sit at a distance and wage war and peace in words, but how often do we sit with Arabs and Israelis (separately or together) and listen to their personal stories? >>I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelistremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government.....<< --I admire people who make intelligent choices based on a deep awareness of the consequences of conflict and a heart-level connection to people on both sides affected by it. I admire less the people who get on a soapbox and flatter one side while demonizing the other. It leads to a rise in extremism and the marginalization of people who are doing what really works. Israel is gambling on the chance that destroying Hezbollah and a good chunk of Lebanon's infrastructure with it will marginalize terrorists and create a wave of willingness to negotiate with Israel. I don't know if it will work that way. I hope it does, not because I think we should encourage those kinds of "final solutions" to the problem of evil, but because it would be the best case scenario for stability. But ideally, there would be many more civilians willing to engage with voices they've silenced in their minds while viewing the whole mess in terms of problems rather than people. Many of the people in the nonviolence and reconciliation movement are Jewish and have close ties to Israel, as well as Arab and Muslim friends. I admire them, more than I admire people who preach to their own side the virtues of feeling innocent while punishing the guilty. To be a bridge is harder and requires more insight and intelligence than to bomb one. Americans who have seen only one side will be at some point be shocked to realize that we've been shutting out faces and voices on the other that we needed to see and hear. Arabs will also eventually realize they've been shutting out Israeli and American voices they needed to hear. But it's hard to hear anything that's covered in stereotypes, media imagery, and demonizing stories told about one side by another. We've made the same mistake before, repeatedly, and will continue making it until we stop justifying the logic behind it. Americans (and Muslims) at various points shut out the voices of people who were taken as slaves. The fear of hearing the voices of slaves led to a paranoia about slave uprisings. Eventually, it was bleeding-heart activists (most of them Christian) who suggested that slaves needed to be freed and heard. They were denounced, if not crucified. We're all about freeing the Middle East for democracy, self-governance, stability and free trade, and we (rightly) consider the Arab world enslaved by tyrants and religious fanatics. We just fail to see how our policies tend to lead to greater power for tyrants and less influence by moderates, and that Arabs see the tyrants as puppets of the West, changing the "spin" whether we screw up or succeed with any one political or military tactic. We want Arab peaceniks to develop courage and speak out against oppression, but we keep beating our collective chest, afraid we'll be hurt if we show any sign of vulnerability or willingness to let go of control. Everyone wants peace. We're just going about it in a very clumsy way, afraid of losing control in the short term, and willing to make a huge mess in the long term. Conservatives are afraid liberals will "win" again and the 60's will repeat. They're right. But there is more to fear in our collective refusal to deal with shadow than in the liberal tendency to look at conflict as more than a military problem. How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Dear , Thank you for this long, thoughtful and insightful post. To borrow an Alice-ism – it’s a keeper. Now, can you go out to the Middle East and sort them all out – I had a trip to Israel and Egypt planned for October! fa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Dear , You wrote: ---- Lockhart wrote: > Dan says: > >>I am not cynical, just realistic.<< > > --Being realistic in a world where people behave in insane ways can >make you crazy. Sometimes you have to be unrealistic, do something >new, and hope it catches on. If you were talking to Gandhi before he >became an activist, you'd be one of the people whose cynicism moved >him to do what he did. I am not a great admirer of Gandhi. The non-violent tactics of people like Gandhi or MLK jr. might work sometimes within decent, easy-going liberal democracies like that of Britain or the USA, but they won't work against tougher customers. Stalin would have cheerfully tortured Gandhi to death. That said, and if you are right, then the prudent thing for me to do if I were talking to Gandhi before he became an activist would have been to keep my mouth shut about things of consequence - not that I am always prudent. > > >>I very much doubt that encounter groups take more courage than mortal combat > (well, maybe if Fritz Perls were there). Friendship requiring more courage > than war? Really, that's just silly.<< > > --Encounter groups seem to be stereotyped as hug-fests where >everyone sympathizes and talks about feelings and nobody does >anything " manly " . Some encounter groups require that you confront in >yourself what you find easier to criticize in others. Well, I've managed to avoid encounter groups so far (we do have a hot tub, but are fussy about whom we allow in it), so I'll take your word for it. >That DOES take courage. Very few people on the planet will confront >themselves if they're engaging in self-deception, regardless of their >views on war and peace. There are Evangelical Christian male >encounter groups which are much more " huggy-teary " , and I don't have >a problem with them if they help men deal with emotions they'd >normally repress. Why should people to the left of you be embarrassed >by anything similar? I do see pop psychology making inroads into evanglical Christianity - I don't know if that is a good thing or not. If it reflects necessary temporizing, then OK, but it's easy to get captured by that sort of thing. > > Now, if you're talking about the " peace movement " , which includes but >is not limited to encounter groups, you're using a very broad brush to >paint a very diverse group. Peace groups range from somewhat less >than peaceful far-left agitators to very evolved mediators, nonviolent >activists and reconciliation workers. You could even go further and say >that people who advocate war are pro-peace, since the goal of war is to >create stability for those wealthy enough to pay for the required >weapons or persuasive enough to make others pay for them. They >want peace (or will settle for a controlled burn) so that the market >doesn't collapse, so their kids don't get drafted, so they can keep >driving their Hummers. The old " war is really about enriching the warmongers " dodge, is it? This is wishful thinking on the part of the left, imo. It raises the hope that if only we can control the " rich " (maybe give them Hummers without having to go to war or something), then we can (finally! whew!) do away with war. There are some men who like war. They like it for its own sake. They are not in it for money. And that is apart from the consideration that nations have interests that go beyond enriching weapons manufacturers. The latter are a small part of the picture. >The best on the Right are not " warmongers " but people who believe >war is like tooth decay, better done sooner than later, and have a >pragmatic desire to remove people from the process so that peace can >happen. They are part of the " peace movement " , although not >necessarily > trusted or agreed with by other peace groups (anyone who advocates k>illing some group of people to solve a problem risks shadow >projection >and an authoritarian complex). The only people who are >truly " anti->peace " are those who wage war not with the intent to create >stability or >democracy, but to eliminate an enemy viewed in broad >genetic or >religious terms. Everyone is against genocide. Well, let us say that every decent person is against unnecessary genocide. >Let's just say that you and I have different ideas about what needs to be >emphasized in order to create peace and stability. Some monkeys >emphasize their ability to beat their chests while others wage war. >Others are cowards like me, trying to find more subtle ways to rid the >world of evil. If we rid the world of evil, we at the same time rid it of good. Jung 101, surely? >We're on the same side, and we're both monkeys. Well, if we are both monkeys, as Darwin teaches, then it hardly matters anyway. If life is indeed a tale told by an idiot, then I see no reason not to crank up the A/C, gas up the Hummer, and live as a sort of modern epicurian or hedonist. Whatever, dude. Just keep the oil coming. > > >>I don't know if war makes one " safe " - I suppose it does temporarily, > provided one wins. But there will always be another war. What makes one safe > is the known ability and willingness to wage war and win.<< > > --What makes one safe is a rich web of social and business ties between two cultures. And maybe safety isn't necessarily priority number one. Death before dishonor. >Neoconservatives have a think tank theory that wars are most likely to >erupt along the boundaries where free trade bumps against insular, >authoritarian cultures without a thriving middle class. That's not a bad t>heory. The more business ties between two cultures (assuming >they're not predatory and exploitative), and the more civilian social ties, >the more likely each side will accurately understand the motives and >decisions of the other side. We don't understand the Islamic world and >it doesn't understand us. The " Islamic world " is medieval, or would-be medieval. I understand that. I even sympathize. But you can't get there from here. The presence of technology rules out the possibility fo a return to medievalism, imo. You can't get there from here. Even regimes who claim to be directly informed by God have been known to employ spies, and even regimes critical of modernity have been known to employ computers and airplanes and bombs. > Even Bush, with all the mistakes he's made >and all the attempts to >spin them as successes, is attempting to create a climate where >information and human energy can flow between cultures and >decrease the probabily of authoritarian fundamentalists and saber->rattlers being accepted and promoted by the population. > > Unfortunately, the Islamic world believes we want to destroy their way >of life, in the same way Evangelical Christians believe Hollywood and >gay marriage are conspiring to destroy their families. Both are correct. That is the effect, regardless of the intent. >In the same way Neoconservatives believe liberals want to erode our >strength as a nation. It's all the same shadow game. When we see >that, >we do what Jung wanted us to do. When we believe it's as >simple as >eliminating a threat by eliminating a group of people, we >miss Jung >entirely. Eliminating a group of people is rarely simple. > > Hezbollah needs to be marginalized and disarmed, or forced by >public pressure to change their mandate and accept Israel's existence. I very much doubt that H cares that much about " public pressure. " A friend of mine once told me that it is amazing how much a girl can get done if she doesn't mind being known as a bitch. Mutatis mutandis, that is the H stance. >Hamas also needs to accept Israel's existence, in order for >negotiations to make any sense to Israelis. , who's gonna make 'em? > It's unreasonable to allow extremism to take the place of compromise >when compromise is the only possible way to get anything done. It's not the only way to get things done. Victory is another possibility. >Each side justifies putting extremists at the tip of the spear, because >they're afraid and they want someone to blame if things go disastrously >wrong. The solution is not for another authoritarian leader with a final >solution to try to " fix " everything. The solution is for more people to get >involved and communicate across lines, even if it's painful, even if it >means listening to falsehoods and acknowledging fear when it seems >unjustified. As long as we shut out the voices of people across the >planet while trying to manage the planet and retain control over trade >routes, we're on the same path as the Roman > Empire. Even Jesus wouldn't endorse our policies if he came back. I am not a great admirer of Jesus. I'm not sure I care what he would endorse. >He'd say, " What part of 'love your enemy' was so difficult to >comprehend? The part about how it's the foundation of slave morality. The part about how it is ignobly self-denigrating. The part about how it goes against the virtue of pride. >First you shut out the moderates and portray Arabs and Muslims as >villains in movies, then you crack down on the extremists without >having any real human connection to the people you claim you're trying >to free from tyranny. Is that any kind of plan? " Who has shut out the moderates? (what moderates?). > We need to confront our collective shadow, and part of that shadow was the demonization of Muslims and Arabs in media and in our own consciousness. It's not that there aren't violent fascist groups in the >Islamic world. There are, and they need to be addressed. But shooting >Hitler would not have been the way to deal with Hitler before he took >power. Addressing the fear and resentment in the public would have >made Hitler redundant. Having a more honest conversation, not >ABOUT Muslims and Arabs, but with them, would accomplish more >than eliminating Hezbollah, leaving thousands of outraged They would play you for a sucker, like a naive psychologist in a prison therapy group. > civilians and no doubt a huge number of lawsuits against Israel, not to >mention a strengthening of antisemitism in the world and an increased >likelihood of a suitase nuke being set off in Tel Aviv somewhere down >the road. I have flown El-Al. They are serious about security in Israel. > > >>Want peace? Prepare for war.<< > > --Want war? Be willing to look, up close, at the consequences of war, and engage in sane long-term planning rather than knee-jerk retaliation and clampdowns that backfire. It's easy for anyone to say, " I support the troops " , just as it's easy for people to say " peace now " . Having a position is not the same as knowing what is happening to people on all sides of conflict, in realtime, with recognition of their humanity and not merely the armchair general's strategic verbal brain. We sit at a distance and wage war and peace in words, but how often do we sit with Arabs and Israelis (separately or together) and listen to their personal stories? > > >>I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I admire the Israelis > tremendously, and wish I were a Jew. If ever there were a people fit for self-government.....<< > > --I admire people who make intelligent choices based on a deep awareness of the consequences of conflict and a heart-level connection to people on both sides affected by it. I admire less the people who get on a soapbox and flatter one side while demonizing the other. It leads to a rise in extremism and the marginalization of people who are doing what really works. Israel is gambling on the chance that destroying Hezbollah and a good chunk of Lebanon's infrastructure with it will marginalize terrorists and create a wave of willingness to negotiate with Israel. I don't know if it will work that way. I hope it does, not because I think we should encourage those kinds of " final solutions " to the problem of evil, but because it would be the best case scenario for stability. But ideally, there would be many more civilians willing to engage with voices they've silenced in their minds while viewing the whole mess in terms of problems rather than people. > > Many of the people in the nonviolence and reconciliation movement are Jewish and have close ties to Israel, as well as Arab and Muslim friends. I admire them, more than I admire people who preach to their own side the virtues of feeling innocent while punishing the guilty. To be a bridge is harder and requires more insight and intelligence than to bomb one. > > Americans who have seen only one side will be at some point be shocked to realize that we've been shutting out faces and voices on the other that we needed to see and hear. Arabs will also eventually realize they've been shutting out Israeli and American voices they needed to hear. But it's hard to hear anything that's covered in stereotypes, media imagery, and demonizing stories told about one side by another. We've made the same mistake before, repeatedly, and will continue making it until we stop justifying the logic behind it. > > Americans (and Muslims) at various points shut out the voices of >people who were taken as slaves. The fear of hearing the voices of >slaves led to a paranoia about slave uprisings. It wasn't paranoia, it was a realistic fear. They many always have the advantage of numbers - hence the name. >Eventually, it was bleeding-heart activists (most of them Christian) who >suggested that slaves needed to be freed and heard. They were >denounced, if not crucified. We're all about freeing the Middle East for >democracy, self-governance, stability and free trade, and we (rightly) >consider the Arab world enslaved by tyrants and religious fanatics. As I have said before, I don't care about bringing democracy to the Arab world just for the sake of doing so. Our efforts to impose our regime on them is one of the things that angers them. If they were willing to coexist peacefully with the West, they could mutilate thieves in soccer staduims and forbid women from driving 'till the end of time, for all I care. Nothing to do with me. I'm not here to save the world, and wouldn't know how to if I were. The problem is, the Arab world will not peacefully coexist - too many >want to impose *their* regime on us - and we can't have that there here. We just fail to see how our policies tend to lead to greater power for tyrants and less influence by moderates, and that Arabs see the tyrants as puppets of the West, changing the " spin " whether we screw up or succeed with any one political or military tactic. We want Arab peaceniks to develop courage and speak out against oppression, but we keep beating our collective chest, afraid we'll be hurt if we show any sign of vulnerability or willingness to let > go of control. To repeat, I couldn't care less about Arab internal politics as long as they don't present a threat to the West. >Everyone wants peace. We're just going about it in a very clumsy way, afraid of losing control in the short term, and willing to make a huge mess in the long term. > > Conservatives are afraid liberals will " win " again and the 60's will >repeat. They're right. Nah. No draft, no hippies and no counterculture. We learned that one :-). A few movie stars and other eccentrics can go on " hunger strikes " if they want to - you can believe me when I tell you that almost nobody cares. They can starve themselves with my compliments, and I hope they have a fine day for it. best, Dan > But there is more to fear in our collective refusal to deal with shadow >than in the liberal tendency to look at conflict as more than a military >problem. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! MessengerÂ’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Wow! Plotinus's dialectic in action.... fascinating! Kind of like a wave function ending up at truth at some point WAY down the line.... Fibbonacci's sequence converging on the Golden ratio.Honestly though I'd be more comfortable if this whole thing never happened and the 60s was happening all over again in the middle east!! PS. A.O.Congratulations on your new Grandchild!-Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Dan says: >>I am not a great admirer of Gandhi. The non-violent tactics of people like Gandhi or MLK jr. might work sometimes within decent, easy-going liberal democracies like that of Britain or the USA, but they won't work against tougher customers. Stalin would have cheerfully tortured Gandhi to death.<< --Actually, nonviolence was used successfully under Hitler and under Soviet Communism. It works where and when it works, and people have a tendency to underestimate how often it works when applied consistently. There are two extremes that may have to be exhausted first: complacency, and violence. The people who resisted Apartheid tried both violence and nonviolence, and nonviolence worked better. We would all, of course, appreciate if Arabs and Muslims used nonviolence in resisting Israeli and American occupation. We just don't want to set the example. A great book on nonviolence is A Force More Powerful: A century of Nonviolent Conflict. Understanding how it works might give people a better idea of when and where it works, so they wouldn't miss as many opportunities and have to rely on messier solutions. >>That said, and if you are right, then the prudent thing for me to do if I were talking to Gandhi before he became an activist would have been to keep my mouth shut about things of consequence - not that I am always prudent.<< --No, you should have scolded him and said things like "You're a naive liberal pansy! The British aren't just going to walk away because you let them shoot at you." That would have inspired him to work even harder in the right direction.>>Well, I've managed to avoid encounter groups so far (we do have a hot tub, but are fussy about whom we allow in it), so I'll take your word for it.<< --What do hot tubs have to do with encounter groups? Are you saying you have some stereotype about them without having any experience with them? That would be a bit silly. But I suppose anything we have no experience with must come with a stereotype, however disconnected it may be from reality. It's hard to hold a blank in one's mind, so the space is filled with whatever is floating around in the psyche. >>I do see pop psychology making inroads into evanglical Christianity - I don't know if that is a good thing or not.<< --I've seen Christians use Freudian psychology to analyze atheists and homosexuals. Not exactly what Freud had in mind... probably a reaction to being analyzed by some insensitive gay or atheist Freudian. >>The old "war is really about enriching the warmongers" dodge, is it? This is wishful thinking on the part of the left, imo. It raises the hope that if only we can control the "rich" (maybe give them Hummers without having to go to war or something), then we can (finally! whew!) do away with war.<< --War enriches the people who are best able to capitalize on it. That may be the rich, at times. Rather than controlling the rich, I'd prefer that the "masses" consume the world's resources more mindfully, so that people can get rich doing what works for the world rather than what will make future generations believe we are insane or evil.>>There are some men who like war. They like it for its own sake. They are not in it for money.<< --I didn't say they were. Some people (males especially) feel less effeminate when calling for war, even if they're not doing the fighting. Some people like to play Russian Roulette with fate, for whatever personal reasons. Some people like to be considered heroes. Some people join the military for the structure and discipline, or a scholarship. People resist war for just as many reasons. >>And that is apart from the consideration that nations have interests that go beyond enriching weapons manufacturers. The latter are a small part of the picture.<< --A small cog that connects other small cogs in a machine. Perhaps not as small as you think, given the interconnections between politicians and various industries that benefit from war. That's not to say we wage war for money, just that networks of influence tend to converge on what benefits people in the network. >>Well, let us say that every decent person is against unnecessary genocide.<< --Hard to disagree with that. "Unnecessary" implies genocide may be necessary at times, which opens the door to justifications. Is genocide ever necessary?>>If we rid the world of evil, we at the same time rid it of good. Jung 101, surely?<< --Ridding your diet of toxic food doesn't cause you to starve. At least some of the violence going on in the world is preventable, or was at some earlier point. Some of what we feed ourselves as a culture is toxic, and leads to war, environmental damage and serious problems for health and sanity. We don't have to drift along mindlessly, doing what habit dictates, if it leads us off a cliff. >>Well, if we are both monkeys, as Darwin teaches, then it hardly matters anyway.<< --Are you saying monkeys don't matter? I love animals. They experience pain and affection, just as I do. Whether life has any "ultimate meaning" or not, if you cause me pain, it matters to me. >>If life is indeed a tale told by an idiot, then I see no reason not to crank up the A/C, gas up the Hummer, and live as a sort of modern epicurian or hedonist. Whatever, dude. Just keep the oil coming.<< --If life is a tale told by an idiot, then I'll have to create meaning that makes me happy. Inflicting suffering on fellow beings does not make me happy. If it makes you happy, and you need religion or some other justification for your existence in order to do be mindful about how your actions affect the rest of the world, then by all means, keep your ultimate purpose. I wouldn't want you driving a Hummer and wasting oil just to piss off liberals.>>And maybe safety isn't necessarily priority number one. Death before dishonor.<< --What is dishonor, to you? And what makes it worth more than life? >>A friend of mine once told me that it is amazing how much a girl can get done if she doesn't mind being known as a bitch.<< --In other words, people who feel powerless sometimes do whatever seems to work, regardless of whether it's really a good idea or not. As long as people give in to bullying, people learn to bully when they feel there's no other way to feel powerful. A big part of the problem. Nonviolent resistance is not the same as giving in to bullying, despite widespread assumptions. >>, who's gonna make 'em?<< --Ideally, the recognition by mainstream Muslims and Arabs that support of suicide bombings against civilians undermines the goal of Palestinian freedom. As long as Israel is doing so much "collateral damage", that argument falls into the background. Israel appears to believe that it will be in a better negotiating position after eliminating as much of Hezbollah as it can. That may or may not be true. It's a gamble, and any future reprisals against Israel will no doubt be blamed on the minority of peaceniks, rather than on bad political and military strategy. The funny thing about violence is that when it fails, the situation then is more dangerous, giving hawks an automatic advantage regardless of mistakes.>>Who has shut out the moderates? (what moderates?).<< --There have been many moderate Islamic and Arab movements. There was even a Muslim "Gandhi" at one point, whose name I can't remember, and whose name you can't remember either. There have been moderate movements, and not only have we failed to notice them and give them support, but at times Israel and the US have actively undermined them. Suicide bombers get media attention, and however little it gains for Palestinians or Iraqis, it gives enough immediate fame and glory to keep those tactics high on the list of available options for dealing with occupation or injustice. But you won't hear about Arab nonviolence. It doesn't make the news, so you believe it doesn't exist.>>They would play you for a sucker, like a naive psychologist in a prison therapy group.<< --I'm not afraid of being "played for a sucker". I'm pretty perceptive. Being in dialogue does NOT make a person weak or wimpy, Dan. It only means that if you're easily fooled and must resort to violence in order to prove it.>>It wasn't paranoia, it was a realistic fear. They many always have the advantage of numbers - hence the name.<< --Paranoia among slave owners was more than a realistic fear. It was shadow projection, among other things. Either way, slavery would inevitably fall, because it required that the reality of the human experience of slaves be walled off in public consciousness. When worlds are walled off that way in people's minds, the walls eventually collapse. Shut out the voices of Muslims and Arabs while relying on their resources, and you get a "clash of civilizations". Shut out Evangelical Christians and you get the "culture wars". Anything shut out of consciousness eventually returns, either violently or through some other form of communication.>>As I have said before, I don't care about bringing democracy to the Arab world just for the sake of doing so. Our efforts to impose our regime on them is one of the things that angers them.<< --I don't think anyone really likes being told what to do. That's pretty universal. >>If they were willing to coexist peacefully with the West, they could mutilate thieves in soccer staduims and forbid women from driving 'till the end of time, for all I care.<< --Is that your stereotype of Muslims and Arabs? The Taliban were considered by many to be "rednecks", respected only for their resistance to the USSR. Even Iran, with its fanatical leadership, is pretty modern compared to the stereotype most Americans (aided by the media and by the actions of groups like Hezbollah which feed the media that feeds on violence) keep in their minds. >>The problem is, the Arab world will not peacefully coexist - too many >want to impose *their* regime on us - and we can't have that there here.<< --Are you really afraid that Arabs or Muslims will impose some kind of tyranny on the US? Far more likely would be an oil embargo. That might be something to fear, since it would have a huge impact on the US economy. But there's no way we're going to be living in an Islamic Caliphate. Even Saddam, who was pretty evil as evil goes, did not have the power to enslave anyone outside his borders.>>To repeat, I couldn't care less about Arab internal politics as long as they don't present a threat to the West.<< --If you're relying on Arab sources for oil, then you have a moral obligation to care. Sorry if that violates your assumptions about how capitalism works. You can't NOT be morally involved when you're doing business, except by being deeply in denial.>>No draft, no hippies and no counterculture. We learned that one :-)<< --You're partly right. But the draft is not the only consequence that can spark a movement. >>A few movie stars and other eccentrics can go on "hunger strikes" if they want to - you can believe me when I tell you that almost nobody cares. They can starve themselves with my compliments, and I hope they have a fine day for it.<< --Some of what you say falls into the "look how conspicuously unconcerned I am about others, who exist in my mind purely in terms of denigrating stereotypes" category. It's too theatrical to take seriously. If you think people who support nonviolence, reconciliation or other work in the "anti-war" category are all movie stars, you've been watching too much TV. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Dear , If, if, if.... As long as Muslims think the West thinks they are inferior they will remain violent. Perhaps it might occur to you that different milieus engender different myths, but complexes are relatively the same. There is some violence in Islam and that is what the fanatics are counting on. Nobody likes to be "dissed" and the Arabs do feel that way, in our world. You need a lot more compassion and intelligence, feeling too mostly to put yourself in most Muslim shoes. You , we, do not see as they see...and nobody sees as long as oil is blinding them. The general Muslim population is fighting a defensive war on most everything Western, except technology.They do not want to become like us, and so they cling to "old" ways. Very understandable. Maybe it is time, to see this conflict as it really is...and not to assume we know how the Arabs think or what they want. Endless "encounter" groups, sermons, and whatever other means of trying to understand ourselves and others cannot help until the people in those groups try consciousness first. Isn't it time to take off the "reasoning" "we can do it" psychology which has so failed us, and realize that we will never "reason" people out of their beliefs, their fear or their insecurities. We sure haven't managed it with all our wonderful institutions. People in the west will be endless discouraged if they imagine they have the glories of civilization to give to "backward peoples" of this earth. It 8s time for us all to admit we do not have answers, and until we do, compassion can be our only stance. Time to BE, not just to act....And guess what that takes, consciousness and good will. We can prattle on for all eternity, we can show really great intellectual solutions, but a split in humanity is not healed by trying to reason, and doing it from our standpoint. No one can reason with fear. Give it up! No intellectual pact has ever brought peace to anyone. Time to see reality as it is not as we wish it were. Your 'good" is not everyone else's "good" nor do others see their "bad" as bad very often A good reading of Jung might disabuse those who forget what mankind is really....Most of the world including most of us are still in the participation mystique and will go where led. Our human nature is not so simple that is we explain something, the other immediately gets it and agrees. "Working" for peace is not a group activity. It must first be inculcated into each person. We cannot give what we do not have, and peace, sadly to say, this society has very little knowledge of. Let us stop debasing the word "peace". What we want is a secession of violence on our terms only...that is not peace. Most have no clue to what peace really is, and seeing our society divided as it is at this moment bears this out. It is time to see ourselves as others see us, and to admit to ourselves we too are frightened by a thought of the world not according to our own values, views and opinions. Give it up, and begin to see reality worldwide, and within. Understand what Jung actually said about human nature, alone or in a group. That would immediately tell you that intellectualizing a war from one point of view is fruitless and dangerous. Ranting and raving on anyone's part leads to weariness and nothing else. This problem will not go away because some people have benign thoughts. War is man's way of "getting his" in all ways, and unfortunately perhaps, all peoples react to it in the same way when the talking stops long enough for us to feel scarcity and fear. Let us what we are, and not what we wish we were...that goes for all HUMANITY,but us "first world" ers most. Blame the liberals...they, you imagine love to parade their brotherhood of man without an inkling of what that entails in suffering for us all....after we convince the multitude that brotherhood can be real.I fear that ideal is no more than an ideal to be achieved in some other world...time to open our eyes. First let us work within ourselves. No more noble sentiments, wishful thinking,megalomania, and a total inability to know the self/Self. That is and has always been the only way, much as you and most others who "talk" for peace wish to deny it or hurry it along. Toni Re: cynicism Dan says: >>I am not a great admirer of Gandhi. The non-violent tactics of people like Gandhi or MLK jr. might work sometimes within decent, easy-going liberal democracies like that of Britain or the USA, but they won't work against tougher customers. Stalin would have cheerfully tortured Gandhi to death.<< --Actually, nonviolence was used successfully under Hitler and under Soviet Communism. It works where and when it works, and people have a tendency to underestimate how often it works when applied consistently. There are two extremes that may have to be exhausted first: complacency, and violence. The people who resisted Apartheid tried both violence and nonviolence, and nonviolence worked better. We would all, of course, appreciate if Arabs and Muslims used nonviolence in resisting Israeli and American occupation. We just don't want to set the example. A great book on nonviolence is A Force More Powerful: A century of Nonviolent Conflict. Understanding how it works might give people a better idea of when and where it works, so they wouldn't miss as many opportunities and have to rely on messier solutions. >>That said, and if you are right, then the prudent thing for me to do if I were talking to Gandhi before he became an activist would have been to keep my mouth shut about things of consequence - not that I am always prudent.<< --No, you should have scolded him and said things like "You're a naive liberal pansy! The British aren't just going to walk away because you let them shoot at you." That would have inspired him to work even harder in the right direction.>>Well, I've managed to avoid encounter groups so far (we do have a hot tub, but are fussy about whom we allow in it), so I'll take your word for it.<< --What do hot tubs have to do with encounter groups? Are you saying you have some stereotype about them without having any experience with them? That would be a bit silly. But I suppose anything we have no experience with must come with a stereotype, however disconnected it may be from reality. It's hard to hold a blank in one's mind, so the space is filled with whatever is floating around in the psyche. >>I do see pop psychology making inroads into evanglical Christianity - I don't know if that is a good thing or not.<< --I've seen Christians use Freudian psychology to analyze atheists and homosexuals. Not exactly what Freud had in mind... probably a reaction to being analyzed by some insensitive gay or atheist Freudian. >>The old "war is really about enriching the warmongers" dodge, is it? This is wishful thinking on the part of the left, imo. It raises the hope that if only we can control the "rich" (maybe give them Hummers without having to go to war or something), then we can (finally! whew!) do away with war.<< --War enriches the people who are best able to capitalize on it. That may be the rich, at times. Rather than controlling the rich, I'd prefer that the "masses" consume the world's resources more mindfully, so that people can get rich doing what works for the world rather than what will make future generations believe we are insane or evil.>>There are some men who like war. They like it for its own sake. They are not in it for money.<< --I didn't say they were. Some people (males especially) feel less effeminate when calling for war, even if they're not doing the fighting. Some people like to play Russian Roulette with fate, for whatever personal reasons. Some people like to be considered heroes. Some people join the military for the structure and discipline, or a scholarship. People resist war for just as many reasons. >>And that is apart from the consideration that nations have interests that go beyond enriching weapons manufacturers. The latter are a small part of the picture.<< --A small cog that connects other small cogs in a machine. Perhaps not as small as you think, given the interconnections between politicians and various industries that benefit from war. That's not to say we wage war for money, just that networks of influence tend to converge on what benefits people in the network. >>Well, let us say that every decent person is against unnecessary genocide.<< --Hard to disagree with that. "Unnecessary" implies genocide may be necessary at times, which opens the door to justifications. Is genocide ever necessary?>>If we rid the world of evil, we at the same time rid it of good. Jung 101, surely?<< --Ridding your diet of toxic food doesn't cause you to starve. At least some of the violence going on in the world is preventable, or was at some earlier point. Some of what we feed ourselves as a culture is toxic, and leads to war, environmental damage and serious problems for health and sanity. We don't have to drift along mindlessly, doing what habit dictates, if it leads us off a cliff. >>Well, if we are both monkeys, as Darwin teaches, then it hardly matters anyway.<< --Are you saying monkeys don't matter? I love animals. They experience pain and affection, just as I do. Whether life has any "ultimate meaning" or not, if you cause me pain, it matters to me. >>If life is indeed a tale told by an idiot, then I see no reason not to crank up the A/C, gas up the Hummer, and live as a sort of modern epicurian or hedonist. Whatever, dude. Just keep the oil coming.<< --If life is a tale told by an idiot, then I'll have to create meaning that makes me happy. Inflicting suffering on fellow beings does not make me happy. If it makes you happy, and you need religion or some other justification for your existence in order to do be mindful about how your actions affect the rest of the world, then by all means, keep your ultimate purpose. I wouldn't want you driving a Hummer and wasting oil just to piss off liberals.>>And maybe safety isn't necessarily priority number one. Death before dishonor.<< --What is dishonor, to you? And what makes it worth more than life? >>A friend of mine once told me that it is amazing how much a girl can get done if she doesn't mind being known as a bitch.<< --In other words, people who feel powerless sometimes do whatever seems to work, regardless of whether it's really a good idea or not. As long as people give in to bullying, people learn to bully when they feel there's no other way to feel powerful. A big part of the problem. Nonviolent resistance is not the same as giving in to bullying, despite widespread assumptions. >>, who's gonna make 'em?<< --Ideally, the recognition by mainstream Muslims and Arabs that support of suicide bombings against civilians undermines the goal of Palestinian freedom. As long as Israel is doing so much "collateral damage", that argument falls into the background. Israel appears to believe that it will be in a better negotiating position after eliminating as much of Hezbollah as it can. That may or may not be true. It's a gamble, and any future reprisals against Israel will no doubt be blamed on the minority of peaceniks, rather than on bad political and military strategy. The funny thing about violence is that when it fails, the situation then is more dangerous, giving hawks an automatic advantage regardless of mistakes.>>Who has shut out the moderates? (what moderates?).<< --There have been many moderate Islamic and Arab movements. There was even a Muslim "Gandhi" at one point, whose name I can't remember, and whose name you can't remember either. There have been moderate movements, and not only have we failed to notice them and give them support, but at times Israel and the US have actively undermined them. Suicide bombers get media attention, and however little it gains for Palestinians or Iraqis, it gives enough immediate fame and glory to keep those tactics high on the list of available options for dealing with occupation or injustice. But you won't hear about Arab nonviolence. It doesn't make the news, so you believe it doesn't exist.>>They would play you for a sucker, like a naive psychologist in a prison therapy group.<< --I'm not afraid of being "played for a sucker". I'm pretty perceptive. Being in dialogue does NOT make a person weak or wimpy, Dan. It only means that if you're easily fooled and must resort to violence in order to prove it.>>It wasn't paranoia, it was a realistic fear. They many always have the advantage of numbers - hence the name.<< --Paranoia among slave owners was more than a realistic fear. It was shadow projection, among other things. Either way, slavery would inevitably fall, because it required that the reality of the human experience of slaves be walled off in public consciousness. When worlds are walled off that way in people's minds, the walls eventually collapse. Shut out the voices of Muslims and Arabs while relying on their resources, and you get a "clash of civilizations". Shut out Evangelical Christians and you get the "culture wars". Anything shut out of consciousness eventually returns, either violently or through some other form of communication.>>As I have said before, I don't care about bringing democracy to the Arab world just for the sake of doing so. Our efforts to impose our regime on them is one of the things that angers them.<< --I don't think anyone really likes being told what to do. That's pretty universal. >>If they were willing to coexist peacefully with the West, they could mutilate thieves in soccer staduims and forbid women from driving 'till the end of time, for all I care.<< --Is that your stereotype of Muslims and Arabs? The Taliban were considered by many to be "rednecks", respected only for their resistance to the USSR. Even Iran, with its fanatical leadership, is pretty modern compared to the stereotype most Americans (aided by the media and by the actions of groups like Hezbollah which feed the media that feeds on violence) keep in their minds. >>The problem is, the Arab world will not peacefully coexist - too many >want to impose *their* regime on us - and we can't have that there here.<< --Are you really afraid that Arabs or Muslims will impose some kind of tyranny on the US? Far more likely would be an oil embargo. That might be something to fear, since it would have a huge impact on the US economy. But there's no way we're going to be living in an Islamic Caliphate. Even Saddam, who was pretty evil as evil goes, did not have the power to enslave anyone outside his borders.>>To repeat, I couldn't care less about Arab internal politics as long as they don't present a threat to the West.<< --If you're relying on Arab sources for oil, then you have a moral obligation to care. Sorry if that violates your assumptions about how capitalism works. You can't NOT be morally involved when you're doing business, except by being deeply in denial.>>No draft, no hippies and no counterculture. We learned that one :-)<< --You're partly right. But the draft is not the only consequence that can spark a movement. >>A few movie stars and other eccentrics can go on "hunger strikes" if they want to - you can believe me when I tell you that almost nobody cares. They can starve themselves with my compliments, and I hope they have a fine day for it.<< --Some of what you say falls into the "look how conspicuously unconcerned I am about others, who exist in my mind purely in terms of denigrating stereotypes" category. It's too theatrical to take seriously. If you think people who support nonviolence, reconciliation or other work in the "anti-war" category are all movie stars, you've been watching too much TV. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Dear , You wrote: ---- Lockhart wrote: > Dan says: > >>I am not a great admirer of Gandhi. The non-violent tactics of people like Gandhi or MLK jr. might work sometimes within decent, easy-going liberal democracies like that of Britain or the USA, but they won't work against tougher customers. Stalin would have cheerfully tortured Gandhi to death.<< > > --Actually, nonviolence was used successfully under Hitler and under >Soviet Communism. Yes, I remember how President Reagan persuaded the Soviets to come around by disarming us first, as a good example. Oh wait, that was President , and he only *wanted* to do it. Never mind. Come on. You dishonor thousands of our war dead when you say things like this. I don't know what you mean by " used successfully, " but you can't mean that nonviolent resistance brought down either the Nazi or the Soviet regime. >It works where and when it works, and people have a tendency to >underestimate how often it works when applied consistently. There are >two extremes that may have to be exhausted first: complacency, and >violence. The people who resisted Apartheid tried both violence and >nonviolence, and nonviolence worked better. South Africa was and is a decent, easy-going modern liberal democracy, even during the days of apartheid (which, by historical standards was pretty small beer as injustices go). It was not a Stalinist tyranny > We would all, of course, appreciate if Arabs and Muslims used >nonviolence in resisting Israeli and American occupation. We just don't >want to set the example. When you were a boy, , did you never have to face a bully? With all due respect to governesses, " setting the example " will typically just invite a butt-kicking. Everybody who has ever been on a school yard knows this well enough, don't they? > > A great book on nonviolence is A Force More Powerful: A century of >Nonviolent Conflict. Understanding how it works might give people a >better idea of when and where it works, so they wouldn't miss as many >opportunities and have to rely on messier solutions. > > >>That said, and if you are right, then the prudent thing for me to do if I were talking to Gandhi before he became an activist would have been to keep my mouth shut about things of consequence - not that I am always prudent.<< > > --No, you should have scolded him and said things like " You're a >naive liberal pansy! The British aren't just going to walk away because >you let them shoot at you. " That would have inspired him to work even >harder in the right direction. Thing is, I think a lot of the Brits*wanted* to walk away. Too bad. They took on the job, they should have seen it through. Churchill was right - of all the lousy things (I paraphrase) the Brits ever did to the Indians, the worst was to leave. > > >>Well, I've managed to avoid encounter groups so far (we do have a hot tub, but are fussy about whom we allow in it), so I'll take your word for it.<< > > --What do hot tubs have to do with encounter groups? Aren't they required? My mistake. I guess I'm a little fuzzy on the etiquette :-). >Are you saying you have some stereotype about them without having >any experience with them? That would be a bit silly. But I suppose >anything we have no experience with must come with a stereotype, >however disconnected it may be from reality. It's hard to hold a blank in >one's mind, so the space is filled with whatever is floating around in the >psyche. > > >>I do see pop psychology making inroads into evanglical Christianity - I don't know if that is a good thing or not.<< > > --I've seen Christians use Freudian psychology to analyze atheists >and homosexuals. Not exactly what Freud had in mind... probably a >reaction to being analyzed by some insensitive gay or atheist Freudian. Yes, well. Once you write it down and publish it, it is open to the interpretation and use of anyone who can read, right? Maybe Freud should have been more prudent and guarded in his speech - not that prudence was ever his forte. Why would anyone bother with Freud when we have Nietzsche? > > >>The old " war is really about enriching the warmongers " dodge, is it? This is wishful thinking on the part of the left, imo. It raises the hope that if only we can control the " rich " (maybe give them Hummers without having to go to war or something), then we can (finally! whew!) do away with war.<< > > --War enriches the people who are best able to capitalize on it. Umm.. true , but a tautology . Anything enriches the people best able to capitialize on it. This is like saying that races are won by the people best able to run fast. So what? > That may be the rich, at times. Rather than controlling the rich, I'd >prefer that the " masses " consume the world's resources more >mindfully, so that people can get rich doing what works for the world >rather than what will make future generations believe we are insane or >evil. The " masses " are never mindful, and cannot be. Jung 101, again. > > >>There are some men who like war. They like it for its own sake. They are not in it for money.<< > > --I didn't say they were. Some people (males especially) feel less >effeminate when calling for war, even if they're not doing the fighting. >Some people like to play Russian Roulette with fate, for whatever >personal reasons. Some people like to be considered heroes. And some people like to *be* heroes. Who doesn't love heroes? (Archetypal Psychology 101). >Some people join the military for the structure and discipline, or a scholarship. People resist war for just as many reasons. > > >>And that is apart from the consideration that nations have interests that go beyond enriching weapons manufacturers. The latter are a small part of the picture.<< > > --A small cog that connects other small cogs in a machine. Perhaps >not as small as you think, given the interconnections between >politicians >and various industries that benefit from war. That's not to >say we wage >war for money, just that networks of influence tend to >converge on what >benefits people in the network. Certainly there are people who benefit from war - no one denies that. It was ever thus. > > >>Well, let us say that every decent person is against unnecessary genocide.<< > Hard to disagree with that. " Unnecessary " implies genocide may be necessary at times, which opens the door to justifications. Is genocide ever necessary? If " genocide " means the literal killing of every single member of a given group, then it is hard to imagine a scenario where it would be necessary. If, on the other hand, " genocide " means the effective elimination of a regime or " culture, " then I can see where it might be necessary. It may become necessary for the West to eliminate fundamentalist Islam (i.e., real Islam), for example. I hope not, but if Islamic nations insist on pursuing an expantionist foreign policy, maybe it will become necessary > > >>If we rid the world of evil, we at the same time rid it of good. Jung 101, surely?<< > > --Ridding your diet of toxic food doesn't cause you to starve. Nice try, but food and virtue are not comparable. No courage without war. No bravery without danger. No liberality without need. No patience without aggravation. No forebearance without pain. You see what I mean. >At least some of the violence going on in the world is preventable, or >was at some earlier point. Some of what we feed ourselves as a >culture is toxic, and leads to war, environmental damage and serious >problems for health and sanity. We don't have to drift along mindlessly, >doing what habit dictates, if it leads us off a cliff. > > >>Well, if we are both monkeys, as Darwin teaches, then it hardly matters anyway.<< > > --Are you saying monkeys don't matter? I love animals. They >experience pain and affection, just as I do. Whether life has >any " ultimate meaning " or not, if you cause me pain, it matters to me. Then you embrace the ethic of will-to-power - what " matters to me " (what matters is what matters to me, in the absence of any cosmic support). You may say it is an ethic of love, but raising what you happen to love to a moral teaching is itself an exercise of raw power. To say, arbitrarily (and if Darwin is right, all ethics are arbitrary), that one should reduce pain and increase love is itself a function of will-to-power. Not that I blame you - if Darwin is right, it is inevitable. But don't be surprised if Thrasymachus is indifferent to your preferences, and has his own agenda and his own (superior) will-to-power. You can't have it both ways. You can't debunk Christianity (as Darwin does), and then expect to keep Christian ethics of peace and love and compassion. Teachings have consequences. Sow Darwin, reap Social Darwinism (Darwin referred to Spencer as " our philosopher " ). While it's true, btw, that Darwinism as such actually hold no ethical teaching - the teaching that life is a tale told by an idiot is not an ethical teaching - it is also true that, human beings being as they are, it will certainly encourage the willful creation and adoption of the social Darwinist ethic among the strong. > > >>If life is indeed a tale told by an idiot, then I see no reason not to crank up the A/C, gas up the Hummer, and live as a sort of modern epicurian or hedonist. Whatever, dude. Just keep the oil coming.<< > > --If life is a tale told by an idiot, then I'll have to create meaning that >makes me happy. Will to power. " Create meaning. " This is pure Nietzsche. >Inflicting suffering on fellow beings does not make me happy. If it >makes you happy, If it makes me happy, I will just bloody well do it. Why, in the absence of God or Cosmos, would I care how my actions affect the rest of the world? I care about how the actions of the rest of the world effect *me*. God canot exist, since I could not stand not to be He. No one willingly hurts himself. >and you need religion or some other justification for your existence in >order to do be mindful about how your actions affect the rest of the >world, then by all means, keep your ultimate purpose. I wouldn't want >you driving a Hummer and wasting oil just to piss off liberals. I am not grandiose enough to think that " liberals " care enough about what I do to get angry about it. I'd love to have a Hummer (but only the big one, please - otherwise, what's the point?), but the budget won't permit. If you want people to eschew wasteful cars, let the gas prices rise. > > >>And maybe safety isn't necessarily priority number one. Death before dishonor.<< > > --What is dishonor, to you? The contempt of my superiors or equals, combined with the knowledge that I deserve it. > And what makes it worth more than life? You really have to ask? Actually, I think better of you than that. > > >>A friend of mine once told me that it is amazing how much a girl can get done if she doesn't mind being known as a bitch.<< > > --In other words, people who feel powerless sometimes do whatever >seems to work, regardless of whether it's really a good idea or not. As >long as people give in to bullying, people learn to bully when they feel >there's no other way to feel powerful. People often feel powerless because they are powerless, in my observation. Not all bitchiness is bullying - you can't conflate the two. >A big part of the problem. Nonviolent resistance is not the same as giving in to bullying, despite widespread assumptions. > > >>, who's gonna make 'em?<< > > --Ideally, the recognition by mainstream Muslims and Arabs that >support of suicide bombings against civilians undermines the goal of >Palestinian freedom. Ah. Back to universal enlightenment. But what makes you think that " mainstream Muslims and Arabs " make the decisions? I will be confusing you with President Bush in a minute - democracy everywhere!, lol. Imo, it is the cultural inferiority of the Palestinian people (who did not, you wil recall, make the desert bloom) that undermines the goal of Palestinian freedom. >As long as Israel is doing so much " collateral damage " , that argument >falls into the background. Israel appears to believe that it will be in a >better negotiating position after eliminating as much of Hezbollah as it >can. I think that Israel believes she will be more powerful, and hence safer, after eliminating as much of Hezbollan as she can. I must say I agree. It were better still to eliminate Hezbollah altogether. >That may or may not be true. It's a gamble, and any future reprisals >against Israel will no doubt be blamed on the minority of peaceniks, r>ather than on bad political and military strategy. The funny thing about v>iolence is that when it fails, the situation then is more dangerous, >giving hawks an automatic advantage regardless of mistakes. > > >>Who has shut out the moderates? (what moderates?).<< > > --There have been many moderate Islamic and Arab movements. >There was even a Muslim " Gandhi " at one point, whose name I can't >remember, and whose name you can't remember either. Probably because I never knew it. So much for the power and the glory of the nonviolent. >There have been moderate movements, and not only have we failed to >notice them and give them support, but at times Israel and the US have >actively undermined them. We have to pick a side - and no, President Clinton, the side can't be " both. " Fwiw, I believe this is a fight to the death. >Suicide bombers get media attention, and however little it gains for >Palestinians or Iraqis, it gives enough immediate fame and glory to keep >those tactics high on the list of available options for dealing with >occupation or injustice. But you won't hear about Arab nonviolence. It >doesn't make the news, so you believe it doesn't exist. I can believe it exists, I just don't believe it will be effective. > > >>They would play you for a sucker, like a naive psychologist in a prison therapy group.<< > > --I'm not afraid of being " played for a sucker " . I'm pretty perceptive. It's not enough to be perceptive. You must also establish dominance. >Being in dialogue does NOT make a person weak or wimpy, Dan. It >only means that if you're easily fooled and must resort to violence in >order to prove it. > > >>It wasn't paranoia, it was a realistic fear. They many always have the advantage of numbers - hence the name.<< > > --Paranoia among slave owners was more than a realistic fear. It was >shadow projection, among other things. Either way, slavery would >inevitably fall, It hasn't fallen yet. There is no inevitability about it. It is a mistake to think that because something has happened (in this case the end of legal chattel slavery in the West), in a particular place and for a particular time, that it was inevitable. Sometimes things get better, sometimes they get worse - there is no sort of historical inevitability about it. >because it required that the reality of the human experience of slaves >be walled off in public consciousness. Do you assume that, if the masters had not walled off this reality, they would somehow have then been incapable of imposing slavery? You are an optimist. >When worlds are walled off that way in people's minds, the walls >eventually collapse. Shut out the voices of Muslims and Arabs while >relying on their resources, and you get a " clash of civilizations " . I actually think that I am more sympathetic to Muslim and Arab culture than many, including many on the left. I have a soft-spot for the medieval, as you know. >Shut out Evangelical Christians and you get the " culture wars " . I like the culture wars. I expect to win. Even if I lose, I will have gone down resisting - with flags flying, as it has been said. >Anything >shut out of consciousness eventually returns, either violently or through >some other form of communication. Why do you assume that self-knowledge leads to peace, compassion, equality, democracy and all the rest of it? Because I gather that such is your true opinion. Perhaps what is repressed is after all one's natural cruelty and unbridled lust for dominance. Perhaps once the repressed returns, the natural master becomes free to impose slavery with a good conscience. I only mention the possibility, which has not, to my knowledge, been ruled out. > > >>As I have said before, I don't care about bringing democracy to the Arab world just for the sake of doing so. Our efforts to impose our regime on them is one of the things that angers them.<< > > --I don't think anyone really likes being told what to do. That's pretty universal. > > >>If they were willing to coexist peacefully with the West, they could mutilate thieves in soccer staduims and forbid women from driving 'till the end of time, for all I care.<< > > --Is that your stereotype of Muslims and Arabs? It is my stereotype of Sharia. The point is, whatever it is, it is nothing to do with us. > The Taliban were considered by many to be " rednecks " , respected >only for their resistance to the USSR. Even Iran, with its fanatical >leadership, is pretty modern compared to the stereotype most >Americans (aided by the media and by the actions of groups like >Hezbollah which feed the media that feeds on violence) keep in their >minds. > They can't fully escape modernity, any more than the fundamentlaist Christians can. But people can compartmentalize, such that incompatible things (eg religion and philosophy) can as a practical matter coexist. > >>The problem is, the Arab world will not peacefully coexist - too many >want to impose *their* regime on us - and we can't have that there here.<< > > --Are you really afraid that Arabs or Muslims will impose some kind of >tyranny on the US? Not immediately. Not at all if we maintain our strength. But there is no doubt in my mind that those who embrace fundamentalist Islam would cheerfully do away with us. >Far more likely would be an oil embargo. That might be something to >fear, since it would have a huge impact on the US economy. But there's >no way we're going to be living in an Islamic Caliphate. There's no such thing as " no way. " There's nothing you can do that can't be done. I don't worry about an oil embargo. We can break that. In any event, the sellers need the buyers at least as much as the buyers need the sellers. Where is the Saudi Royal family without customers? How does Chavez continue to buy off the plebs without oil money? The prospect of running out of oil, at least in the near term, doesn't worry me much. >Even Saddam, >who was pretty evil as evil goes, did not have the >power to enslave >anyone outside his borders. Saddam was a " non-ideological " petty tyrant. He was no enemy of modernity. He is not a man of principle. The Imams (some of them anyway) are men of principle. > > >>To repeat, I couldn't care less about Arab internal politics as long as they don't present a threat to the West.<< > > --If you're relying on Arab sources for oil, then you have a moral >obligation to care. No, I don't. I only have a " moral " obligation to pay. I don't rule Arabia, and I am not here to save the world. >Sorry if that violates your assumptions about how capitalism works. I think I have few illusions about how capitalism works >You can't NOT be morally involved when you're doing business, except >by being deeply in denial. Denial of what? Sorry. I am only morally accountable to my own. One might, as a matter of magnanimity, come to the rescue of a stranger, but one is not obliged. > > >>No draft, no hippies and no counterculture. We learned that one :-)<< > > --You're partly right. But the draft is not the only consequence that can >spark a movement. Sure, but when people have nothing personally to lose, they mostly don't care. > > >>A few movie stars and other eccentrics can go on " hunger strikes " if they want to - you can believe me when I tell you that almost nobody cares. They can starve themselves with my compliments, and I hope they have a fine day for it.<< > > --Some of what you say falls into the " look how conspicuously unconcerned I am about others, who exist in my mind purely in terms of >denigrating stereotypes " category. It's too theatrical to take seriously. If >you think people who support nonviolence, reconciliation or other work in >the " anti-war " category are all movie stars, you've been watching too >much TV. Well, they are certainly the easiest to mock. Theatrical or not, how does " nonviolence " work when the public doesn't care? Best, Dan > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Toni says: >>As long as Muslims think the West thinks they are inferior they will remain violent.<< --Aren't we stereotyping Muslims as inferior at the same time? Perhaps it's time to start digging beneath stereotypes. There are very few Muslims willing to commit murder to gain a political voice. Many more feel shut out and unheard, and I believe that feeling is reasonable on their part. We keep portraying Muslims as terrorists, while rewarding suicide bombing cults with media fame. It's not just *their* problem. Not to let Muslims off the hook, but we're on the hook too. >>Perhaps it might occur to you that different milieus engender different myths, but complexes are relatively the same.<< --Complexes are projected in all directions, I agree. Many Muslims see us as fascists or imperialists. Many Westerners see Muslims as fascists or imperialists. It might be a good time to start looking for human faces beneath talking points and stereotypes. It might even be healing.>>There is some violence in Islam and that is what the fanatics are counting on.<< --There is violence in the Quran, and there is violence in the Bible (Moses was a genocidal war criminal, if ordering the killing of infants and non-virgin girls in Numbers 31 is taken as a factual account). But there are very few Muslims engaging in violence. We tend to confuse those who are critical of us with those who are willing to kill us. There are a huge number of Muslims who are critical of US or Israeli politics. That does NOT mean they are all willing to strap on dynamite belts and walk into a restaurant. >>Nobody likes to be "dissed" and the Arabs do feel that way, in our world.<< --True, nobody likes to be misrepresented, insulted or otherwise dehumanized. What's equally toxic, perhaps more so, is mutual silence with a proliferation of stereotypes and one-sided narratives about the Other.>>You need a lot more compassion and intelligence, feeling too mostly to put yourself in most Muslim shoes.<< --I agree, it's good to be able to put yourself in the shoes of others, especially if you are then able to see yourself through your own eyes as the Other. >>You , we, do not see as they see...and nobody sees as long as oil is blinding them.<< --Oil is a dependency problem for us, but I don't think terrorism in the Islamic world is an oil issue. It has more to do with the perception that the US and Israel only care for themselves and are willing to exploit Muslims or support corrupt regimes that are willing to do business with us. Much of that criticism is legitimate, and as long as we're busy fighting, we'll ignore those real concerns. >>The general Muslim population is fighting a defensive war on most everything Western, except technology.They do not want to become like us, and so they cling to "old" ways. Very understandable.<< --Agreed. Also, not necessarily inevitable. The "culture war" in the US was largely engineered by talk radio, think tanks and churches with large phone trees. The West should have paid more attention to antisemitism in Arabic media, and learned to understand who was inflaming tensions and why. Instead, there was just a big, abstract wall of silence between the West and the Islamic world, even where Muslims had positive views of the US. >>Maybe it is time, to see this conflict as it really is...and not to assume we know how the Arabs think or what they want.<< --I agree, we should not assume we know what they want, but rather learn to listen. Otherwise, we see in them what we need to see in order to justify our own reactions.>>Endless "encounter" groups, sermons, and whatever other means of trying to understand ourselves and others cannot help until the people in those groups try consciousness first.<< --Dialogue is less deadly than silence. It may not always work, any more than bombing people always works. But when it works, it works better and peace lasts longer. Portraying all dialogue as an "encounter group" is an easy way to dismiss the value of mediation and real listening. There is already an encounter going on, the only question is whether opinions are formed one-sidedly at a distance, or mutually, face to face. Distant perceptions tend to be one-dimensional and absolute, and unreal.>>Isn't it time to take off the "reasoning" "we can do it" psychology which has so failed us, and realize that we will never "reason" people out of their beliefs, their fear or their insecurities. We sure haven't managed it with all our wonderful institutions.<< --You can't reason anyone out of their insecurities, if one of their insecurities is that they're afraid you're trying to manipulate them. You can only listen, and make sure that your view of them becomes more accurate over time rather than set in stone from a distance that obscures all distinction and detail. We keep wanting to engineer a solution, not realizing that much of the solution has to be in recognition, not manipulation.>>People in the west will be endless discouraged if they imagine they have the glories of civilization to give to "backward peoples" of this earth.<< --Agreed. Again, it's the presupposition that "we" have to solve "their" problem. Whether we do it through war or through condescending forms of help, we're not seeing or hearing them. >>It 8s time for us all to admit we do not have answers, and until we do, compassion can be our only stance.<< --I think one can take a stand (including the use of force) while maintaining compassion, but I agree with you here. Humility tends to be lacking when enemies describe each other with such absolute certainty. >>Time to BE, not just to act....And guess what that takes, consciousness and good will.<< --Westerners and Muslims have spent little time being present with one another. Talking points and paranoia (and careless use of language) tend to suppress consciousness and goodwill. As long as any two masses are stuck in their talking points, stereotypes and defenses, extremism wins on all sides.>>We can prattle on for all eternity, we can show really great intellectual solutions, but a split in humanity is not healed by trying to reason, and doing it from our standpoint. No one can reason with fear.<< --I agree. Being present with fear works better than reasoning with it. Reason works *after* a human connection is established. >>Give it up! No intellectual pact has ever brought peace to anyone.<< --Intellect alone doesn't work. Intellect plus feeling works better. Add intuition and good timing, and problems can be solved that intellect alone can't work with. >>Most of the world including most of us are still in the participation mystique and will go where led.<< --Hard to say, until people are forced to act. I believe that Americans, when we're forced to get involved, are very good at solving problems. Apathy is strong, for the most part because people are occupied with more ordinary struggles.>>"Working" for peace is not a group activity. It must first be inculcated into each person.<< --It's both. People who work on themselves may also form groups. >>We cannot give what we do not have, and peace, sadly to say, this society has very little knowledge of.<< --There's plenty of good knowledge. What's lacking is a vehicle to make it public. Mass media is how things become real to our culture. One encouraging sign is that CNN keeps showing footage from hospitals on both sides of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. When the audience is able to step, even for a moment, into the shoes of a surgeon or terrified parent in a hospital in the middle of a war zone, the audience gets a view it doesn't get when war is seen as a video game, and the word "war" starts to take on new meanings. >>What we want is a secession of violence on our terms only...that is not peace.<< --I agree. War is perpetuated by widespread feelings that one group is lording its power over another, deliberately humiliating people who have been wronged. Even Hitler relied on public feelings of injustice and humiliation after WWI, and some of that injustice was real (France was a bit arrogant in capitalizing on German coal, which was justified in terms of reparations but caused Germans to feel humiliated and dominated). Had that sense of injustice been dealt with in some other way, Hitler may not have been inevitable. >>It is time to see ourselves as others see us<< --I agree. And vice-versa.>>Understand what Jung actually said about human nature, alone or in a group. That would immediately tell you that intellectualizing a war from one point of view is fruitless and dangerous.<< --I'm not sure who you're lecturing here, but I think most people on this list would have a variety of views on war and Jung, not a single "Western" perspective. This isn't a Southern Baptist church. >>Blame the liberals...they, you imagine love to parade their brotherhood of man without an inkling of what that entails in suffering for us all....after we convince the multitude that brotherhood can be real.I fear that ideal is no more than an ideal to be achieved in some other world...time to open our eyes.<< --More and more, I feel the words "liberal" and "conservative" have lost any real meaning, and are used simply as epithets. Most people I've met have more nuanced views and are less stereotypical than labels imply.>>much as you and most others who "talk" for peace wish to deny it or hurry it along.<< --My feeling about peace is that there's a lot of information that hasn't been given widespread exposure, and that the convsersation about war has been dominated by simplisting thinking and appeals to patriotism and the fear of appearing weak to an enemy. I see nothing wrong with changing the conversation, even if nobody else goes along with it. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.