Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Dan says: >>I am in substantial agreement with this, but it seems to me that the more honorable kind of warfare has been impossible since the American civil war, if not before. Technology has changed averything, for the worse. Was medieval warfare nobler and better? Clearly - but how do we get there from here?<< --We don't. We accept that technology has changed warfare to the point where it cannot be the "noble undertaking" it once seemed to be. We adapt to reality, as successful organisms do. Or we deny reality, and destroy ourselves. I'm going with adaptation.>>Funny, I did think that avoiding conflict resulted in peace.<< --No. Peace is sustained by a web of ties between human beings. Business and trade ties, religious ties, family ties, interest community ties, anything that leads to lasting communication and exchange of energy. When silence erupts between two large groups, it is often a prelude to hostility. Each side passes around rumors and demonizing parables about the other, and without real human connections to counteract the shadow projection, those demonic images take on their own life. Peace is not sustained by the avoidance of conflict, but by the continual willingness to resolve conflicts in their early stages, before entrenchment and demonization become obstacles. It is no coincidence that we are at war with a part of the world that relies on a single export for its wealth. We are "friends" with the social networks that control that resource, but we have too few business and social ties with Arabs and Muslims who don't benefit from oil sales, and their idea of who we are is colored by their perception of American geopolitics, business practices and media imagery, to the point where many will believe the most ridiculous things about America and Americans. They don't come into contact with enough life, three-dimensional Americans. They judge us by what we export, not by who we are. >>I can only say what I said - as a field becomes female-dominated, its prestige goes down, at least in my observation.<< --How are you measuring "prestige"? Are you saying that groups dominated by women are taken less seriously by men? If so, whose responsibility is that, exactly? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Dear , > > > Date: 2006/02/21 Tue PM 05:07:05 PST > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: Re: Digest Number 2253 > > Dan says: > >>I am in substantial agreement with this, but it seems to me that the > more honorable kind of warfare has been impossible since the American > civil war, if not before. Technology has changed averything, for the > worse. Was medieval warfare nobler and better? Clearly - but how do we > get there from here?<< > > --We don't. We accept that technology has changed >warfare to the point where it cannot be the " noble >undertaking " it once seemed to be. We adapt to reality, >as successful organisms do. Does " successful " mean " virtuous " ? I also wonder who " we " are supposed to be. Again, you seem to believe in the possibility of universal enlightenment, that the many can become wise. I hate to make an argument from authority, but this *is* a Jung list, and Jung consistently states precisely the opposite. A little progress in that regard is the best that one can expect. Otherwise, as always, forestalling disaster depends on political men of prudence. > Or we deny reality, and destroy ourselves. There are 6.5 billion of us - we would take a lot of destroying. Now, our numbers may be cut in half over the next century or so. > I'm going >with adaptation. > > >>Funny, I did think that avoiding conflict resulted in peace.<< > > --No. Peace is sustained by a web of ties between >human beings. Business and trade ties, religious ties, >family ties, interest community ties, anything that leads >to lasting communication and exchange of energy. When >silence erupts between two large groups, it is often a >prelude to hostility. Each side passes around rumors and >demonizing parables about the other, and without real >human connections to counteract the shadow projection, >those demonic images take on their own life. Peace is not >sustained by the avoidance of conflict, but by the >continual willingness to resolve conflicts Is there a difference between resolving conflict and avoiding it? Because I'm not sure I see it. >in their early stages, before entrenchment and >demonization become obstacles. It is no coincidence that >we are at war with a part of the world that relies on a >single export for its wealth. > We are " friends " with the social networks that control >that resource, but we have too few business and social >ties with Arabs and Muslims who don't benefit from oil >sales, Perhaps we should approve of the president's port deal, then. and their idea of who we are is colored by > their perception of American geopolitics, business >practices and media imagery, to the point where many will >believe the most ridiculous things about America and >Americans. They don't come into contact with enough life, >three-dimensional Americans. Difficult to see how they could. Most of us don't want to travel there, and the great majority of them don't have money to travel anywhere. I think that the Muslim " street " sees the West, esp. the United States, as a threat to its way of life. This perception is imo not altogether wrong, esp. when Western media blather on about putative universal human rights and the necessity for imposing them on other people. When it comes to these international relationships, I say live and let live whenever possible. It is absolutely none of our business whether Saudi women are allowed to drive cars, or whether the Saudis mutilate criminals in soccer stadiums, just as it is absolutely none of Europe's business whether Americans practice capital punishment, and absolutely none of Americans' business if Europe prefers high taxes. It should in particular not be the business of the West to insist on democracy everywhere. This all leaves out the problem of Israel, always the elephant in the room. I believe that many Arabs will not rest until Israel is destroyed, and we can't let that happen. Not because of Israelis' " universal human rights. " Not because of any mythic human right to self-determination. No - but because the Jews are a superior people and a superior culture, and because they are our own. >They judge us by what we export, not by who we are. What we export is not such a bad indicator of who we are. Movies and records extolling greed, secularism, domestic violence, gangsters, unlimited acquisitiveness, adultery, unwed motherhood, homosexuality, hedonism, individual " self-determination. " Not to mention bad food. Such are a decent indicator of what half of us have become, in any event (and what our own fundamentalists are reacting against). I sympathize with Arab wishes to resist this tide. And it is difficult not to blame an unfettered capitalism. > > > >>I can only say what I said - as a field becomes female-dominated, its > prestige goes down, at least in my observation.<< > > --How are you measuring " prestige " ? Are you saying >that groups dominated by women are taken less seriously >by men? Of course. Haven't you observed the same? Watch what happens to medicine in the next 25 years. >If so, whose responsibility is that, exactly? I'm not sure what you mean. Nature's responsibility, I guess. The archetypes' responsibility. If you mean, whose responsibility is it to " fix " it?, well, I'm not sure it needs fixing. > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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.