evolution etc.

[Guest guest]

Dan says: >>Doesn't your argument here assume that the appearance of the human species was not inevitable?<< --It may not have been inevitable. I'm pretty sure SOME form of intelligent life is inevitable whenever a planet is the right distance from a star and has the right elements in the right proportions. It would surprise me if we were the only form of intelligent life in the universe, and there's no way to know what all the possible variations are. An oceanic species analogous to humans could easily exist, and some would say dolphins, whales and elephants are "human" in the ways that matter. Our problem as a species is ego. We think we're the crown of creation, rather than one of the prettier (and crueller) jewels.>>, this amounts to saying that the many are wise except when they are not. Which is formally true, but not very meaningful.<< --If everyone who

claimed wisdom also knew the limitations of his knowledge (not to mention the limitations imposed by defense mechanisms, which undermine self-knowledge), our situation would be greatly improved. There may be a "natural elite", but would it be recognized as such? Most likely, it would face persecution for failing to conform to the systems in place and their sacrificial requirements. Like Socrates, no? >>The idea that the problem is one of "accurate information" is one that, imo, the political left makes again and again - "If only we can just get the word out about what the military industrial complex (or whatever the bubaboo might be) is doing to them, they will come around." This seems to be the thesis of that book _What's the Matter with Kansas?_. The right understands, at least at this juncture, the archetypal bases of persuasion better than does the left (even if they don't use the Jungian lingo).<< --I agree, and I see

plenty of signs the Left is making progress on the learning curve, now that they've been chastized by the success of the Right. When the Right falls due to its own blind spots, a progressive moment (not necessarily adhering to stereotypical left/right distinctions) will pick up the slack, I believe with a great deal more insight. And those in the progressive movement who are Christians will show a hell of a lot more authentic Christian compassion than the Right, with its appeals to God and family values. As the Left had to walk in the wilderness for a while, the Right will be faced with the same "punishment". The era of "arrogant liberalism" had to be followed by one of equally arrogant conservatism, and the pendulum swing is starting to take effect. I can't guarantee the next President will be a Democrat, and I'm not sure it even matters. If it's a Republican, it will have to be one who is willing to stand up to the fundamentalists and corporate insiders, if he or she

wants to make it to a second term.>>Rather presumptuous to think one knows what is necessary for our species to endure, don't you think? Maybe nature is wiser than we are.<< --Nature is me, Dan. Presumptuous not to answer when nature calls, just because someone might think you're arrogant for doing what the survival and sanity of our species requires us to do. Eventually, ego is undermined by its fallacy of isolation from everything else, and when it is, nature breaks through, either positively or in darker form. Don't think sitting around quoting Jung is the same as being in balance with nature. That's just linear intellect, which as you've heard is a good servant but a terrible master.>>First you say that not only the exceptional, but even the many, may be enlightened by means of information and deliverance from the stupier passions, and then you turn right around and say that even the best are but a

product of their times and "interconnectivity" - as though no one achieves escape velocity, as it were. So which is it? Is freedom from one's ancestral and civic prejudices possible, or is it not?<< --Freedom is not only possible, it's required for the future to be worth living in. Any culture that denies interconnectivity will fragment and be killed off by other cultures or descend into a nightmare of relative ethics (i.e. "what's good for us is their sacrifice, and there will be no backlash") and destroy itself. It is not information alone that changes minds. It's the human connection, the charisma of the teacher and his or her ability to say what others have been thinking but don't know how to articulate. That doesn't make the teacher an "elite". It's a skill, it can be learned, and it only takes a willingness to listen as much as one speaks. That ability may be "elite" in that it is still rare, but only for lack of enough people

willing to do the work. For the most part, that unwillingness is not due to any deliberate evil or ignorance. It's just that most people have jobs, relationships, and other priorities, and they tend to avoid conflicts until they are serious enough that becoming more involved is unavoidable. >>I spoke of prudence - "practical wisdom" - which imo is developed in those of a suitable nature thorugh practical experience.<< --I'm all for experience. An isolated elite, isolated from the real world, cannot accomplish much of value except to preserve some good ideas for later when people are willing to act on them. A Jungian group may preserve and perpetuate Jung's writings, but if it doesn't listen to the unconscious and act accordingly, it won't have much effect on the real world. I'm reading See No Evil, the book which was made into the movie Syriana. He talks about how few field agents were

around when he was on the trail of Islamic terrorism, and how much the upper levels of the power hierarchy in Langley and Washington were isolated from the field, concerned with their own advancement and unwilling to take risks or communicate the urgency of information that mattered. He decries "political correctness", which I think you'd appreciate (although that PC mindset went back to the Reagan era, which might not make you happy). Great book. So yes, I agree, practical experience makes a difference and gives perspective.>>Well I suppose you mean that resolving a conflict that already exists is different from avoiding it to begin with, which is true enough. But I am not in a position to make peace on a macro level. I suppose you will see that the micro level will do, which is again true enough.<< --As long as one is making peace, it may not matter if it's on the macro or micro level. Whatever one has at one's

disposal, one uses, or fails to use. Preventing conflicts would work much better than trying to unravel the ball of spaghetti once it's tangled. Not easy to put toothpaste back into the tube, but you CAN avoid squeezing it out in the first place. Going back to the CIA, if we'd spent more money and risk on field agents collecting information from Arabs on the street, we could have avoided making some of the more dramatic and stupid errors in foreign policy over the last few decades. We tried to solve short term problems without building up an infrastructure needed to prevent those problems from snowballing over time. A greater willingness to expose field agents to danger (or their bosses to political embarrassment) would have enabled them to save many lives. You say most Americans aren't interested in traveling to the Arab world and that most Arabs can't afford to come to America (or have so much trouble getting past the red tape that it's not worth it). Which is

true. But we have internet. I routinely talk to Arabs and Muslims, from Saudi, from Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and so on. I have even gotten good enough at communicating with them that I can rebuke any hypocrisy or equivocation on their part without losing their respect. It's learnable, if one is willing to gain experience. Anyone can do it, even in as pedestrian a forum as Yahoo chat. Isn't internet cool? But it requires that you not descend into polemics and shout at them when they demonize Americans (not that many actually hate Americans, they just hate our government, and I can't blame them) or make outrageous claims about 911 being a conspiracy. If you love your enemy and speak truth without venom, you can overcome division. If you project shadow, you can't. It's a hard truth, but not so hard once you get past the denial that says, "Their evil is their problem, why should I bother speaking with people who hate the President?".>>I challenge you to establish the

existence of such a thing as a "basic human right." What sort of being, if any, do they have?<< --If someone were torturing you and I could stop them, I would. Not because of any political or philosophical theory, but because you are human and I am human. That's nature. It's deeper than words, deeper than the formal process of articulating which rights (and whose rights) are worth prioritizing and defending. If you don't get it, then you aren't fully human, but in some sort of thinking denial of the feeling and transcendent functions. >>Suicide bombing is a tactic. It is not what I would call a gentlemanly tactic, but, as you say, the era of wars between gentlemen appears to be over.<< --If you are advocating using suicide bombings against Muslim civilians, then I'll have to oppose you, not just disagree with you. If not, what stops you? Suicide bombings are a tactic, and they are

also a psychological defense against feeling empathy for civilians on the other side and recognizing one's own shadow. The best tactic against them is to marginalize them, which means we must hear the concerns and even endure the accusations of Muslims who feel shut out and disrespected. There is great potential for a Jihad against the Jihadists, and we could amplify that possibility just by showing that we are able to listen to people who feel we are deliberately deaf and blind to their reality. As for gentlemanly tactics, I happen to admire and uphold the classical "noble warrior" ideal. To respect your enemy and even feel compassion for him while defending yourself against him is part of the martial arts philosophies, which I think we ought to apply to ourselves if we wish to survive the war on terror as a nation. If not, if our government continues undermining its credibility (not to mention its Christianity) by breaking rules to enforce rules,

then perhaps we will go the path of the Soviets, breaking apart into smaller states. But I think since unlike the Soviet states we were united to begin with, we just might overcome our own hypocrisy and blindness and start doing the right things in the right ways. The alternative is what some Christians call "relative morality", normally applied to sexual behavior but far more consequential when different warring groups uphold different ethical standards, imitating the worst behavior of their enemy rather than holding the line against barbarity in themselves. As for imposing democracy or human rights, I agree with you more or less. We can't bomb the world into complying with human rights laws (Bush's condemnation of Saddam's and Hamas's human rights abuses aside) but we CAN uphold a consistent standard, and set the example. The world tends to follow America, our best and worst. If we have that kind of influence, I say we use it for the better,

rather than setting a bad example for the rest to follow. >>Islamic regimes naturally resent and resist such presumption, and I can't say I altogether blame them.<< --I can't blame Muslims for reacting against the feeling that we don't respect their culture or their rights. Our foreign policy has spoken for us, for many years. It would be good if we could find some way to acknowledge what we've done to that part of the world, especially if it can be done in a way that rewards Muslims who use dialogue or self defense rather than violence against civilians. We will end up apologizing later, either way. Our grandchildren will not have as much reluctance to condemn our hypocrisy as we do. >>Of course we must resist any threat on their part to our own way of life, but I think we should also leave them to their own ways of life within their own borders.<< --I agree. That is the message we should communicate. "Mess with us, and you might get hurt. Let us live in peace, and we will return the favor." Unfortunately, our behavior says otherwise, in part because of our newly discovered oil addiction, and partly because each administration wants to minimize political risks, and pushes risk onto others. >>Indignation is a poor counselor. Do you make good decisions in the throes of moral outrage? I usually don't. That's why you don't punish a child while you're still angry - you send him to his room until *you* cool off.<< --Agreed. Good advice for all sides. >>I doubt that there is any nation on earth where it is legal to blow up children in the street. A universal moral sensibility, if that is what we are talking about, is not the same thing as a "universal human right" as that has been construed

by modern political philosophy.<< --I suspect there are a variety of philosophical and political views, and it might not be fair to put them all in the same bucket. I agree, we need a universal moral sensibility, and I believe it is possible to establish one, without being overly dogmatic or invoking a deity against some group of infidels. >>(You can't justly punish people after the fact for actions that weren't illegal at the time - how would you like your descendents to be held accountable for things you do now that might be illegal in two hundred years' time?)<< --How do you punish the dead? You can only acknowledge the suffering they helped create, whether it was legal at the time or not. Acknowledgement heals, more than any punishment or demand.>>Suffering is necessary for consciousness, so it must be "good."<< --This is where I stomp on your foot, hard. With steel-reinforced boots. And a big ironic grin on my face Sometimes what sounds like a logical consequence of some unquestioned axiom turns out to be a pile of shit in reality. Like I said, linear verbal thinking doesn't always get the picture.>>I don't really see any insurmountable problem - we've got money, you've got oil, let's deal. No need for us to accept Sharia, or for them to reject it.<< --Only problem is, the Saudis and others who control the oil must crack down on too many people to survive much longer as a regime. They tried to buy time by funding the extremist madrasas. With *our* money. That ties us to the problem, both morally and politically. Nothing in nature happens in a vacuum, however simple things seem in words. Same problem if you buy drugs from terrorists. Buying drugs from people who grow or make them on their own is fine with me. But

if you knowingly buy from people who are funding terrorism against Americans, that's a bit of a conundrum.>>I frankly don't believe that there is any sort of occult psychic connection between you and me and Saudi women and Iranian intellectuals.<< --What your ego thinks matters little. You've read Jung. Now might be a good time to understand what he was saying. You are justified in thinking the political process of enforcing human rights is problemating. It definitely is. But that doesn't mean there is no interconnection on other levels. The unconscious doesn't buy the ego excuse that "I was just making deals." >>Don't forget that, according to Jung, there is something to be said for living in a world that is numinous and, for want of a better term, "medieval."<< --Nothing goes backwards. A modern "midieval" mindset must necessarily come with modern technology,

including biological and nuclear weapons. As you mentioned before, technology changes things. >>Of course the French are our own.<< --Does that mean we can stop teasing them? >>What the Arab "street" sees is the movies. That is the poison that comes into their cities.<< --I agree. It can only be outweighed by an outpouring of genuine, human connection (including better movies and music) from our side. We export our worst. Time to export our best. >>Most people, including me, do not agree that greater evils are perpetrated in the name of sexual purity, virtue, and collective destiny. In particular, to say that virtue is bad is like saying that the good is bad, lol.<< --Virtue isn't bad. Lip service to virtue, as camoflage for a cannibalistic mindset, is as evil as anything you can name. >>Capitalism is innovative, creative, makes everyone rich, and thus tends to level out the differences between the rich and the poor - it's very democratic.<< --I agree, except when consumers lack a feeling of responsibility. Corporations make us feel like it's not our problem, and we excuse them for their less noble actions. Nice deal, huh? >>My preferred solution would be to recouple it with Puritanism - perhaps the only way it can really work.<< --I feel lucky not to have such a limited imagination. >>By prestige I just mean "honor" - being well thought of and well regarded by other people.<< --Who cares about that, if one gives up ethics and moral integrity? Not a good trade, in my opinion. I'm used to being obscure. It's not that bad. >>The "stars" who cure

cancer and AIDS will continue to enjoy high prestige, and will be mostly men - watch and see if I'm wrong.<< --Not if men keep giving up their integrity in order to compete with each other. Women tend to care about their field, and about the integrity of the systems they're involved in. Men can easily get led astray by the urge to win honor. And it backfires on them, over time. But if men do the best work, then praise the work they do. If women do the best work, praise it just the same. >>It is bad, too, as evidenced by what happens in black communities where doing well in school is not only girly but "acting white."<< --Agreed. It's both cruel and incredibly short-sighted. But black women seem to do better, maybe because for them, "selling out" doesn't carry the same risk of being targeted with violence. >>I doubt that. Boys will just change

the "rules" - by means of violence, if necessary. This is to be avoided.<< --By appeasing their insecurity and locking women out? I don't think so. If doing what is right "provokes" violence, then you continue doing what is right, and you deal with the violence. Men cannot excuse themselves by saying, "I was insecure because women were competing with me fairly!" If they admitted the insecurity, it would help. Masking it with aggression is just denial and hypocrisy. C. Lockhartwww.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.