me: >> yes, but not as much as actually pulling out of Iraq or attacking Iran.
Michael Smith writes: > Is staying *in* Iraq an act? Anybody out there who had the benefit of a > Jesuit education? A poor Proddy like me isn't equipped for this kind of close > casuistical reasoning.< I don't really know anything about Jesuits and their casuistry, since I was raised as a Unitarian (i.e., nothing). All I'm saying is that even though the act of appointing Hillary to run State, etc., is a really bad sign (especially of those who had high hopes for Obama), such things as staying in Iraq (or leaving) are more important in the broad sweep of history, perhaps involving the deaths of many people. There are a variety of types of action defined in terms of their impact on history: thinking about something (which is, strictly speaking, an action) has less impact than saying it. Saying it has less impact than actually doing something, unless the words fall on a fertile field and cause others to act. Appointing someone has less impact than having that someone organize an international blockade. I think this is nothing but one way of looking at the materialist conception of history. It's not "matter in motion" or "economics" (two forces that are often identified as the central causes in historical materialism) that drives history but concrete practice. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
