Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [existlist] Bound to remember

Expand Messages
  • Exist List Moderator
    I would argue self interest came into play when the French helped America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many lines as possible --
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
      I would argue "self interest" came into play when the French "helped"
      America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many
      lines as possible -- hence weakening the British Empire while the
      French were busy expanding their colonial holdings. It had nothing to
      do with agree with us or supporting us. The enemy of my enemy...

      As for WWII, I just can't see the French as the "loyal allies"
      revisionists want to create. The French didn't exactly line up for the
      Resistance, as many want to imagine. The Vichy French were still a
      majority in some surveys through the 1950s. How was this possible?
      Because some agreed with Hitler's "final solution" on racist grounds.
      They are still xenophobic, and anti-semitic / anti-Islamic tendencies
      still coexist in the French mind. Their colonial downward spiral left a
      nasty bigotry in some quarters -- especially when Islamic radicals were
      bombing metro stations in the 60s and 70s.

      History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind wars
      fade. It's the same when Americans imagine the Civil War was about
      slavery or that WWII had anything at all to do with saving the Jewish
      population. Wars are generally about territory and resources, not moral
      causes. When they are about moral causes, you have a hard time
      maintaining public support. Imagine that -- people won't fight wars
      based on morality. Just try to get Americans or Europeans to deal with
      the Sudan or North Korea through military action. Won't happen. Most
      Americans didn't support our actions in the former Yugoslavia until
      after we "won" the peace.

      You should read the NY Times condemnations of WWII while we were
      fighting and after we occupied Berlin. The Times suggested we were
      failing miserably and were wasting our time trying to defend Berlin. It
      wasn't until Kennedy that Americans suddenly agreed with our support of
      West Germany. It's all about selling the idea in terms of self-defense.

      No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
      rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I
      actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since for
      once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again.

      - CSW
    • Ehab Shoubaki
      On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, Exist List Moderator ... Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ? How can one now discern
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
        On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
        <existlist1@...> said:

        >
        > History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind wars
        > fade.
        >
        > - CSW
        >



        Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ? How
        can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
        through that particular era....

        ehab
      • Mary Jo Malo
        No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I actually trust the
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
          "No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
          rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I
          actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since for
          once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again." - CSW

          I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in their
          own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as conventional
          weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
          aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
          forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
          <existlist1@t...> wrote:
          > I would argue "self interest" came into play when the
          French "helped"
          > America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many
          > lines as possible -- hence weakening the British Empire while the
          > French were busy expanding their colonial holdings. It had nothing
          to
          > do with agree with us or supporting us. The enemy of my enemy...
          >
          > As for WWII, I just can't see the French as the "loyal allies"
          > revisionists want to create. The French didn't exactly line up for
          the
          > Resistance, as many want to imagine. The Vichy French were still a
          > majority in some surveys through the 1950s. How was this possible?
          > Because some agreed with Hitler's "final solution" on racist
          grounds.
          > They are still xenophobic, and anti-semitic / anti-Islamic
          tendencies
          > still coexist in the French mind. Their colonial downward spiral
          left a
          > nasty bigotry in some quarters -- especially when Islamic radicals
          were
          > bombing metro stations in the 60s and 70s.
          >
          > History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
          wars
          > fade. It's the same when Americans imagine the Civil War was about
          > slavery or that WWII had anything at all to do with saving the
          Jewish
          > population. Wars are generally about territory and resources, not
          moral
          > causes. When they are about moral causes, you have a hard time
          > maintaining public support. Imagine that -- people won't fight wars
          > based on morality. Just try to get Americans or Europeans to deal
          with
          > the Sudan or North Korea through military action. Won't happen.
          Most
          > Americans didn't support our actions in the former Yugoslavia until
          > after we "won" the peace.
          >
          > You should read the NY Times condemnations of WWII while we were
          > fighting and after we occupied Berlin. The Times suggested we were
          > failing miserably and were wasting our time trying to defend
          Berlin. It
          > wasn't until Kennedy that Americans suddenly agreed with our
          support of
          > West Germany. It's all about selling the idea in terms of self-
          defense.
          >
          > No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
          > rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally.
          I
          > actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since
          for
          > once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again.
          >
          > - CSW
        • Exist List Moderator
          ... I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly unlikely to blindly trust anything nuclear. - C. S. Wyatt I am what I am at this moment, not
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
            On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:

            > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in their
            > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as conventional
            > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
            > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
            > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
            >

            I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly unlikely
            to blindly trust anything nuclear.


            - C. S. Wyatt
            I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
            that I shall be.
            http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
          • bhvwd
            CSW, They will not forget, and so you want to give them fusion power? You ever been in a knife fight? Do you listen to what the adversary says or concentrate
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
              CSW, They will not forget, and so you want to give them fusion power?
              You ever been in a knife fight? Do you listen to what the adversary
              says or concentrate into getting your blade in meat? The French
              consider themselves the bastion of liberty and civilisation, the japs
              are a beaten and vengeful society in decline. Look at their
              demographics. The chinese will eat the japs, we will still keep the
              germans off the back of that stinky, snale eating French whore. Bill
            • Mary Jo Malo
              Who s talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that don t guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other kinds of weapons, the kind
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
                Who's talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that
                don't guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other
                kinds of weapons, the kind that involve plausible deniability. Mary

                In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@t...>
                wrote:
                > On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:
                >
                > > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in
                their
                > > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as
                conventional
                > > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                > > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                > > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
                > >
                >
                > I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly
                unlikely
                > to blindly trust anything nuclear.
                >
                >
                > - C. S. Wyatt
                > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                > that I shall be.
                > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
              • Bob Keyes
                True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are working on poisions that will only kill Arabs.... Call that genetic engineering or what
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
                  True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are
                  working on poisions that will only kill Arabs.... Call that genetic
                  engineering or what but it is reality. We are studying the same stuff. Same
                  with Russia China ,, blah blah...



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
                  Behalf Of Mary Jo Malo
                  Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:19 PM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: Bound to remember


                  Who's talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that
                  don't guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other
                  kinds of weapons, the kind that involve plausible deniability. Mary

                  In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@t...>
                  wrote:
                  > On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:
                  >
                  > > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in
                  their
                  > > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as
                  conventional
                  > > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                  > > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                  > > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
                  > >
                  >
                  > I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly
                  unlikely
                  > to blindly trust anything nuclear.
                  >
                  >
                  > - C. S. Wyatt
                  > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                  > that I shall be.
                  > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                  > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer




                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                  Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Susan Schnelbach
                  The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time. This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
                    The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time.
                    This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.


                    On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Ehab Shoubaki wrote:

                    >
                    > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
                    > <existlist1@...> said:
                    >
                    >
                    >>
                    >> History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
                    >> wars
                    >> fade.
                    >>
                    >> - CSW
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ?
                    > How
                    > can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
                    > through that particular era....
                    >
                    > ehab
                    >
                    >
                    > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                    > nothing!
                    >
                    > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Bob Keyes
                    In all cases.. Bob.. ... From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Susan Schnelbach Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:41 AM
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 1, 2005
                      In all cases..
                      Bob..

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
                      Behalf Of Susan Schnelbach
                      Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:41 AM
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Bound to remember


                      The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time.
                      This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.


                      On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Ehab Shoubaki wrote:

                      >
                      > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
                      > <existlist1@...> said:
                      >
                      >
                      >>
                      >> History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
                      >> wars
                      >> fade.
                      >>
                      >> - CSW
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ?
                      > How
                      > can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
                      > through that particular era....
                      >
                      > ehab
                      >
                      >
                      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                      > nothing!
                      >
                      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Exist List Moderator
                      ... Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that Israelis of semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic* neighbors. Not to
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 2, 2005
                        On Jul 01, 2005, at 20:55, Bob Keyes wrote:

                        > True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are
                        > working on poisions that will only kill Arabs....

                        Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that Israelis of
                        semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic*
                        neighbors. Not to mention that fact Arab-Israelis in the parliament
                        have been on the intelligence panel.

                        A further complication is that nearly a third of Israeli citizens are
                        from non-semitic backgrounds and lack a demonstrable genetic link the
                        the region. Israeli law gives citizenship to any person of Jewish
                        faith, including converts. Also, it gives residency to any Arab-Israeli
                        with a historical link to the territory but willing to disavow violence
                        and work within the Israeli state.

                        I cannot envision a biological agent able to determine ones faith,
                        since that's the only true link among all Jewish Israeli citizens. I am
                        certain my mutt heritage leaves me barely semitic at all.

                        This sort of nonsense is why people still read and believe the Elders
                        of Zion.

                        Israel has low-level, medium-range nuclear fusion weapons, according to
                        Jane's. The benefits of nuclear weapons without the nasty
                        after-effects. Oh, yes, that's the type of reactor core we'll be
                        building in France -- which is also wanting to help Iran with a
                        reactor. Gotta love the planning there.

                        - CSW
                        I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                        that I shall be.
                        http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                        http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                      • Mary Jo Malo
                        Gotta love this planning as well. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm But at least there s nothing nuclear in the reports. That should make our sick Gulf War
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 3, 2005
                          Gotta love this planning as well.

                          http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

                          But at least there's nothing nuclear in the reports. That should make
                          our sick Gulf War vets feel better. Over the years, Independence Day
                          has lost some of its lustre. On balance however, it's still better to
                          be here than there.

                          Mary


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                          <existlist1@t...> wrote:
                          > On Jul 01, 2005, at 20:55, Bob Keyes wrote:
                          >
                          > > True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The
                          Israelis are
                          > > working on poisions that will only kill Arabs....
                          >
                          > Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that
                          Israelis of
                          > semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic*
                          > neighbors. Not to mention that fact Arab-Israelis in the parliament
                          > have been on the intelligence panel.
                          >
                          > A further complication is that nearly a third of Israeli citizens
                          are
                          > from non-semitic backgrounds and lack a demonstrable genetic link
                          the
                          > the region. Israeli law gives citizenship to any person of Jewish
                          > faith, including converts. Also, it gives residency to any Arab-
                          Israeli
                          > with a historical link to the territory but willing to disavow
                          violence
                          > and work within the Israeli state.
                          >
                          > I cannot envision a biological agent able to determine ones faith,
                          > since that's the only true link among all Jewish Israeli citizens.
                          I am
                          > certain my mutt heritage leaves me barely semitic at all.
                          >
                          > This sort of nonsense is why people still read and believe the
                          Elders
                          > of Zion.
                          >
                          > Israel has low-level, medium-range nuclear fusion weapons,
                          according to
                          > Jane's. The benefits of nuclear weapons without the nasty
                          > after-effects. Oh, yes, that's the type of reactor core we'll be
                          > building in France -- which is also wanting to help Iran with a
                          > reactor. Gotta love the planning there.
                          >
                          > - CSW
                          > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                          > that I shall be.
                          > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                          > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                        • George Walton
                          From Harry G. Frankfurt s On Bullshit The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 3, 2005
                            From Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit

                            "The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "antirealist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective reality. One response to the loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his
                            own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

                            "But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistent to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial----notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."



                            Which I suppose means no one can suggest Frankfurt is actually being sincere about this, right?

                            Unless of course the above is merely an exercise in irony. Or perhaps it's yet another manifestation of malarkey.

                            My own reaction is that Frankfurt has more or less hit the bullseye here because the bullseye is embedded in the inherently problematic nature of having a point of view about it at all.

                            In other words, instead of aiming the discussion at what is said to be or not to be bullshit [free will, situational ethics, pragmatism, idealism, critical rationalism, God, the Bush Administration etc] Frankfort seems to imply that those doing the aiming are, in turn, mere fonts of bullshit themselves. And if how we come to understand our own self is ultimately seen to be bullshit how could any perspective emanating from this profoundly problematic font not necessarily be bullshit as well? Then we only have to figure out how to juxtapose this point of view with the necessary assumption it cannot help but be bullshit too. Then we come face to face once again with the seeming intractable impediment of language itself in the attempts made to "resolve" it once and for all.

                            Philosophically, perhaps, it is not whether you are being sincere that is the starting point.....but "who" "you" "are" when insisting this is so. Human identity as a kind of quantum mechanics. I may be sincere in believing this point of view is correct. But there is no way I can know it reflects what is true. The observation and the observer are always intricately intertwined in the seeming mystery of the entanglement itself.

                            Thus how we think about ourselves can only be understood in relationship to all of the countless countervailing variables that came together over the years to create this particular point of view. In other words, who really knows what to expect when they turn the next corner. Even in reading this post it might trigger in you a whole new way of looking at things. And once that happens the potential for yet more change in your "reality" can rapidly evolve into that proverbial snowball.

                            Then it only becomes a question of deciding whether or not this is the good news or the bad. Not that either assumption can be seen as anything other then yet more bullshit, of course.

                            So by all means: choose wisely.

                            george






                            ---------------------------------
                            Yahoo! Mail Mobile
                            Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                            someone a while back asked about the half-glassers being optimists or pessimists. (a lot of that has to do with early childhood experiences in addition to
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 3, 2005
                              someone a while back asked about the half-glassers being optimists or
                              pessimists. (a lot of that has to do with early childhood experiences in
                              addition to inherited tendencies and cultural orientation.)

                              but also maybe "unsophisticated" people as do children see both potential
                              good and bad in people. they know first-hand how indifferent or hostile
                              the world and other people can be, but they reject academic
                              confabulations, classifications, and schemes that do nothing more than
                              lead to despair, gloom, and suicide as a pointless dead end. there is joy
                              in small things - in celebrations, and the occasional turn in good fortune
                              to offset the drudgery or outright suffering of everyday life. for much
                              of human existance, one could turn to nature and her cycles, or turn to
                              rythms in dance, music, and ritual as a way to regain balance and order
                              when trauma and disorder had disrupted the will to keep on truckin.'

                              the word "bullshit" is neither objective, neutral, nor factual but an
                              emotional summary of attitude. trying to be true to oneself, sincere, as
                              opposed to deliberately obfuscating, hiding, or redirecting investigation
                              of whatever is phenomenologically possible to observe, evalutate, and
                              categorize does hold distinctive meaning for most people even when they
                              subscribe to semiotic realities, observational and computational limits.
                              "sincerity" or "truth" to ones best intentions is not at odds with doing
                              the best we can with probability assessments and other ways of getting at
                              "truth" all the while knowing it can not be essentialist fixed Absolute,
                              but an ongoing process continuously tested.

                              the individual has meaning in terms of other individuals who give reality
                              checks, thus also providing the location or context in which the
                              individual finds herself inseparable from her observation.

                              aija,
                              still experiencing as deeply moving, purposeful, and full of hope a
                              childrens' song and dance festival where folk musicians, a rock star, and
                              a symphony orchestra performed together with 35,000 children from every
                              region and the rock star dedicated the song called "my song" to the
                              children the refrain including "i know no one will sing that song in my
                              place" (my translation of Renars Kaupers and Inga Cipe of the group Prata
                              Vetra/Brainstorm) and the final stanza "between a moment and eternity."

                              > From Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit

                              > "The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in
                              > various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable
                              > access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the
                              > possibility of knowing how things truly are.

                              > Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to
                              > identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to
                              > his own nature.

                              > Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial----notoriously less
                              > stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar
                              > as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."

                              george:

                              > In other words, instead of aiming the discussion at what is said to be
                              > or not to be bullshit [free will, situational ethics, pragmatism,
                              > idealism, critical rationalism, God, the Bush Administration etc]
                              > Frankfort seems to imply that those doing the aiming are, in turn, mere
                              > fonts of bullshit themselves.

                              > Then we come face to face once again with the seeming intractable
                              > impediment of language itself in the attempts made to "resolve" it once
                              > and for all.

                              > Philosophically, perhaps, it is not whether you are being sincere that
                              > is the starting point.....but "who" "you" "are" when insisting this is
                              > so. Human identity as a kind of quantum mechanics. I may be sincere in
                              > believing this point of view is correct. But there is no way I can know
                              > it reflects what is true. The observation and the observer are always
                              > intricately intertwined in the seeming mystery of the entanglement
                              > itself.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.