Re: Missed educational goals

[Ray Evans Harrell]

Hi Steve, Good to read your voice, ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Kurtz To: Ray Evans Harrell Cc: FUTUREWORK Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:35 PM Subject: Re: Missed educational goals Hi Ray, My answers: (REH 1) 1. What do you think about the value of the UN?    Is it important? Should the US withdraw into a stance advocated by the conservative areas of the this country? (SK) Although diminished in power, The UN (Annan has courage) has probably helped keep the US from wanton overt imperialism. They do it covertly to the extent possible, and only sometimes overtly. I'd prefer a real global federalism for stronger environmental as well as peace/conflict actions. (REH 2) Interesting also.   How much would you be willing to personally give up on such issues as inheritance rights and taxes on the very rich nations to bring the poorer nations up to parity?     I agree about Annan and the keeping "the US from wanton overt Imperialism."     I think the US is and will be for the foreseeable future, the  sleeping Tiger of the world that people are foolish to overtly challenge as is  happening at the moment.    I don't think anything constructive can come out of the current situation for the third world.   But I too believe that it is better to have  the UN than not.    I think there has to be a coherent answer to the naysayers  at the moment lest this Anti-UN group gain strength and I believe they will unless  they are intellectually engaged.   It is very popular these days for TV pundits to  call themselves Libertarian as this Congressman does.     They are very susceptible to argument and believe that anyone who won't (argue) is stupid and not deserving of "their" opinions or money(taxes).   That includes Liberals and other "welfare" folks.   REH 1 2.  Where do you stand on abortion?  (if this is too personal then ignore it but I believe that it is a crucial issue since it has completely stalled the non-right wing side of the political spectrum in America.   It is the Right Wing's answer to their own immoral stance on Blacks and Civil Rights in the sixties.    So if you are willing I would like to get a more international "take" on this.)   If you believe that abortion is OK then what do you believe it to be? (SK) It is the woman's choice in my opinion. It is her body and her 'work'.   (REH 2) Are you saying that the fetus is property?     (REH 1) Is it "Killing?"   on the one hand or "cleaning up an accident or mistake that is not yet human" on the other?     Is there another way of looking at this?    Or maybe some mixture of the first two? (SK) Personally I don't consider human life any more 'sacred' (as an atheist!) than other life.   (REH 2) This certainly seems to be one of the issues.    For example, Cancer cells are alive as are viruses and other life forms that we consider disease.   The case could be made for susceptibility to these things as some form of educational process that the person is "working through" and that cutting it out or killing the virus is avoiding why you got it in the first place.   But that is esoteric even though there are those who make that argument.    Baby's are after all "natural" while cancer is not, or is it?    I can remember when the psychoanalysts posed illness in those terms.   I believe they called it Eros and Thanatos. Eros being good and Thanatos being bad.    But to do an abortion is to kill the effect of Eros or as in the case of over population Eros can become Thanatos.   (SK) Certainly a potential life is kept from reaching conscious free agency; but there are no guarantees the life would be healthy, pleasant, supported until self-sufficient, etc.  Thus, I cannot judge the act a murder.   (REH 2) Is that the issue that defines murder.    I'm sorry but I don't get the connection. Knowing the Pediatricians in Congress, and the Libertarian Ron Paul that I quoted earlier is one of them, they pretty well all stand against abortion and judge it this  way.       (SK) I judge it as a relative act versus unknown alternatives; and an unhappy mother & maybe or not active father in stressed environment is not a great countervailing position. I prefer vigilant contraception and the current 'morning after' pill. Early term is easy; late term gets tougher to respect. But no absolutes in my view. (REH 2) The Inuits have to ask the headman's permission before they are allowed to become pregnant.    Sometimes he assigned women to strangers in order to keep the blood line strong.    Inuits have a very strong sense of themselves as a part of the food chain.   But they are people of scarcity and need with very clear limitations from their environment.   Romans, on the other hand, come from a place of relative plenty.    The Jewish law, is basically desert law and that is even more interesting, but I would rather a Jewish person talk about that to the list than myself.   (REH 1) Keith you and Steve have brought up Euthenasia in relation to adults, why not seriously speak on abortion?     On the one hand (abortion) people talk about potential while on the other hand (euthanasia)  they speak of killing Einstein, is there another way of looking at it. (SK) Yeah, "potential" misery, disfunctional behavior, etc (REH 2) I know what you mean.   But the Einstein example is for a healthy mind and the cultural treasure that people like Dame Eva Turner in her 90s represented. Personally, since I could not do the work that I wanted and have a retirement and other perks that one "needs" as they grow older, I have elected to do what I could to create the Art that was in me.    It will leave me eventually either a recognized success or a destitute old man.    That was my decision and although I worry for my spouse and daughter I accept that everyone must finish and when I am finished I will not dally but will leave.   Having experienced  the mental issues around lead pollution as a child and young man, I will  not hang around just for fun.    Life is not and has never been anything more  than temporarily "fun."    So as Breaker Morant said at the end.   "Shot well  lads, lets not make a mess of things."     (REH 1) I talk about Gays for the same reason that my Father spoke of Jews and Blacks.   He considered such prejudice intellectually indefensible and worse, a waste of human resources.    People make the same argument for fetuses and for the cognizant elderly.  SK The elderly who are not in severe pain and aren't vegetables should choose for themselves in my view. My wife wants out if she loses physical self-sufficiency (she dislikes being h'cared for' constantly; I don't object to the idea of a mental only existence versus none at all.   REH 2 I've said what I think. SK Now I reiterate my subjective, relativist ethical position on aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics. There ain't no absolutes I'm aware of except what folks say is in their minds. Infinite reality is more tenable than any spacio-temporal boundary arbitrarily posited by humans. Uncertainty is tough, eh? REH 2 I'm comfortable with that and so would any other Traditional Cherokee.   However, the one issue for me has to do with what we call the "other shoes" thing.   Until we can truly walk in the other person's shoes it is difficult to understand the system that they are working out of.   Sometimes that even means accepting its limitations and seeing what it brings.   If there is to be any serious change then we are asking them to walk and exist in our system or at least, as Harry says,  to tolerate it.   I'm not sure that we can do that without being seriously involved in the inner logic of their system.    What is sure is that they are as sure as you that their system is true and that is where the rub comes in. IMHO.   Regards and thanks for your answer,   Ray