> [Platt] > Maybe so, but to be concerned about the possibility of atomic warfare > represents a justifiable doomsday scenario IMO. > > [Arlo] > Disagree. I think it represents a valid, and important, concern, and > something that should be part of the modern dialogue with regards to > international affairs, policy, and diplomacy. However, I think using > it as a "doomsday device" only servers power brokers and nightmare > politicians.
If you are in Manhattan when an atomic bomb goes off, it's indeed "doomsday" for you and millions of other people. > Some ways to spot this include "distance", that is how > far removed from the proposed "threat" does "complete atomic > destruction" lie? If someone says, e.g., "if Clinton/Huckabee is > elected, get ready for an atomic war" is simply moronic fear > rhetoric. Agree. But it's legitimate to criticize a nominee for president who considers expressed threats from Islamic radicals empty rhetoric. > Another way is those proposing "one solution", e.g. when > someone says "unless we do exactly this ONE thing, the world will end > in an atomic barrage". In some cases, only one thing will get the job done, like ending WW II in German sooner than otherwise by taking the bridge at Remagen. > A third is in proposing that "YOU and ONLY > YOU" want to prevent the event, e.g., "conservatives want the world > to be polluted" or "liberals want to see American soldiers killed". That there are differences between the desires of conservatives and liberals is undeniable. There will always be individual exceptions to general descriptions. > All these tie into elaborating specific problems, articulating > specific solutions, and accepting that a solution may be one other > than what you have proposed. This is the type of clarity, for > example, that is completely lost in the "illegal immigration" > dialogue. It is one thing to say "if we do nothing to alter our > present policies, we will face a 200 billion dollar additional > deficit in 10 years" and then listen to solutions to this specific > concern, and quite another to say "if we do nothing to alter our > present policies, America will cease to exist in 10 years, and the > only solution to this is the one I propose". The former lays out a > concern intellectually, the latter is an attempt to use fear to > garner power for a specific interest group. Adding to the debt may indeed result in the demise of the America as we know it although the timing is unpredictable. As for your solving of social problems intellectually, consider Pirsig's warning about current S/O intellect's lack of a moral sense. > [Platt] > Further, a return of the genocides of the 20th century are a > legitimate doomsday concern for the populations at risk. > > [Arlo] > Which is why more people should read and study history, to look at > the events (both national and international) that contributed to > these. It is not enough, I'd say, to simply say "we are prepared to > kill anyone who does anything like Hitler did", we must say "what can > be done to minimize the possibility a Hitler will ever rise to power > again?" We must understand why Henry Ford received the highest > foreign commendation from the Nazi Regime, why the events following > WWI (not to mention the reasons for WWI) laid a foundation that > enabled not only the genocide, but the patriotic fervor and > acceptance of the German Folk for the Nazis. > > We can kill all the Hitlers, and all the Al Qaeda members, we can, > but we will never see a world without them until we understand and > accept the reasons for their being, and couple our legitimate and > moral military responses with reasoned, intellectual foreign actions > that undermine the foundation these despots stand on. Simply saying, > "they hate us for our freedom" is about the most moronic thing one > could say. All dialogues have two voices, and we must accept what > ours has said, and think about what we want it to say. Pirsig warned, "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns can not directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24) > [Platt] > Sometimes fear-rhetoric is required to arose people to real and > present dangers, just as sympathy and similar emotional rhetoric is > justified to right social ills. > > [Arlo] > Fear rhetoric devoid of intellectual substance is never required, > except by politicians and ideologues who are more concerned with > using fear to manipulate people than with articulating concerns and > discussing solutions. I have no trouble with the role of emotional > rhetoric, indeed, as I say repeatedly, we are social beings. But > there is a difference between evoking Rosa Parks as part of a speech > outlining racial injustice, and fortelling the end of America if we > don't build a giant wall along our souther border. Nor do I, as I've > said, have any problem with meeting social-level anti-intellectualism > with social-level condemnation. Considering Pirsig's exposure of today's intellectualism as bereft of a moral center I think we should proceed cautiously with putting all our eggs in that basket. "It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame for the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined the static social values necessary to prevent deterioration." (Lila, 24) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
