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

Re: It is not on paper

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart51
    Mary, You write: Jim can t read . I am sorry if in my last post I misrepresented your objections to Wil. Reading your exchange with Wil, I thought your
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      You write: "Jim can't read".

      I am sorry if in my last post I misrepresented your objections to Wil. Reading your exchange with Wil, I thought your central objection to him was that we Westerners should be cautious about making judgements about non-Western political situations which we know very little about. Further, I thought that you were saying, following Camus, that we should be suspicious of revolutions or revolutionary behaviour like mass demonstrations.

      As I say, I am sorry if this is a misreading of your recent posts. Perhaps you can attempt to correct my misunderstanding if you are not too tired of this issue by now.

      I have based my interpretation of your existential objections to Wil on the passages below from your recent posts. I accept there is an element of a clash of personalities in your interchange with Wil, but I have subtracted that from my view of your existential differences.

      Jim


      48467: A Sartrean take is that revolution changes things while the Camusian slant is that revolution changes little or nothing. Not surprisingly, even allowing for the fact that I can't imagine what it's like to be in the streets of Iran, my opinion is that I would be torn. I'd be torn between wanting a better future and agonizing over my loved ones' decisions to risk their lives. Ultimately, such decisions are solitary and existential. We can't decide for others.

      48478: the Shah was gray

      48481: I don't expect you to be waving our flag, but having such a black or white/all bad or all good attitude toward a nation's evolving history (Iran) seems out of character for a Liberal thinker such as yourself.

      48489: My respect is directed toward those who quietly decide their own destinies and hope nobody gets in their ways. Revolution isn't hip: in fact it's often sheep like. The historical description of a nation is merely a compilation of facts, never the blow by blow account of individual lives, and thereby suspect as useful for sweeping changes. When all's said and done, whatever that means, you might have known what you, only you, were doing. And even if you didn't, nobody else did either, knew what you were doing, that is. Existentialism isn't an -ocracy or –ology of any kind. It's a not-knowing-but-acting-anyway-and-you-decide-for-yourself kind of approach.

      48497: I disagree with your tyrannical perspective, no matter how rooted in your preferred texts. Real people can make terrible mistakes in the name of progress, which is often little more than lateral change. My opinion is that you have a romantic and ruthless perspective of revolution, and I suspect you are of the hang-the-collaborators persuasion.

      48499: I've gone to hell and back to earn the right to political quietism. ... I've tended to agree with Camus' positions on many topics.

      48517: I'm challenging your notion … whether our measly opinions will have any bearing at all. That generally many Americans think they have to have and have to share their dime-a-dozen opinions about every event in the world. The opinions and actions of Iranians are what matters.

      48519: The only thing quietist about me is my poetry. Because I believe an individual should separately, not swayed by mob hysteria, carefully decide on radical political activism, in no way equates with apathy. I'm stressing the cost is high, the responsibility deep, and it's far too cheap to cheer on those who participate from the sidelines. How is that not existentialist? If you go back and read all my posts, yes, you'll see a cautious approach but not an apathetic approach.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.