The Infinite Tribune
 |  Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Stan
Reply with quote  #1 
There have been protests around the world over Israel's genocidal campaign against the Gaza strip. In an obviously illegal incursion and the use of disproportionate force Israel has thumbed its nose at the world because their ally in genocide, the US of A has stood firmly with their obscene tactics. We of course realize that the US is a captive of Israeli foreign policy and no administration dare criticize Israel in any way. This is a given. But what about the rest of the world. They fully understand the cause of Palestinian discontent over 40 years of occupation, blockades and humiliation. They fully understand that so called terrorists are bred from the death and destruction wrought by Israel and they know that an "incident" will eventually occur in their countries. Are they so bound to the US that they can not act unilaterally to stop Israeli terror upon the Palestinians?

Israel is a country dependent on exports and imports. Any nation truly horrified by their actions could cut relations as a show of sympathy with beleaguered Palestine. Why have they not acted to stop this horror? Marching in the streets is easy. Getting your government to break relations with the terrorist stae of Israel is more difficult.

Bob
Reply with quote  #2 
Hi, Stan, et al.:

Negative concurrence here on Israeli culpability. Example: suppose North Korea sent a small squadron of destroyers and cruisers (assuming they have some) to bombard our West Coast. Should (1) our Secretary of State try to open negotiation for a Two-State Solution?

Or suppose North Korea itself had not sent the ships but a renegade cabal had. What would be a properly graduated response? (2) Evacuate the West Coast 35 miles inland? (3) Send a blimp out over the flotilla trailing a big sign reading, "Please stop and go away" while signaling the NK government to control its renegades or else? (4) Start attacking the NK ships one at a time so they think over the propriety and profitability of further attack? (5) SINK every one of the damn attackers at once by every means available? Or (6) Sink the flotilla and devastate the NK harbors they sailed from, and then threaten the NK government with worse if they don't start paying reparations at once?

Okay, apply this to the poor Gazanias! Make those impoverished, scared half-wits try to renounce and control HAMAS? HA. Lotsa luck! I hold no brief for Israel, but I sure don't condone radical fanatics whose brains are strangled by bitter emotions both personal and vicarious, or the failure of a weak, gutless populace with split vision and divided loyalties to stand up to their own Svengali's & bad bosses who provide the nice handouts in exchange for tyranny and blood.

I WANT ALL OUR DEMONSTRATORS IN FRONT OF S.F. CITY HALL TO GIVE ME AN HONEST, WORKABLE SOLUTION SHORT OF DEMANDING ISRAELIS LEAVE THEIR OWN LAND! They've struggled with Arab division, indecision, terrorism and deviousness for way over sixty years. I sympathize with humanity in such a dilemma, but I have no use for Arab preference for playing the victim while fighting guerilla war. There IS NO WAR in Israel-Palestine. There is a pack of irredeemable, common criminals holding their neighbors hostage by threat and force while committing vile murder & destruction to Israelis as far as Hamas' Iranian rockets can reach over the border. Just KILL 'EM. They've asked for it, thinking they can slick by on bleeding heart support. Let THEIR hearts do the bleeding until their eyes go pale enough to see daylight.




Stan
Reply with quote  #3 
Well thanks for the reply Bob, I guess. IMHO Israel is an illegal entity formed out of guilt over the holocaust. It was created and immediately displaced thousands of Palestinians living peacefully on their land. The Israeli beginning had its heart in terrorism against the British mandate and now they cry about terrorism?

I curse Harry Truman for his ill advised assistance toward forming an Israeli state. First he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, then he assists in the formation of a crusader state in the midst of Arab lands. As far as I am concerned Israeli and state are a contradiction of terms. A sensible solution to the Zionist striving for a state would have been to put Israel in the midst of Germany. After all it was the Germans who committed the atrocities on the Jews NOT the Arabs.

Can you just imagine being a refugee on your own land for 61 years? That is the fate of the Palestinians. They are not even allowed to defend themselves against an expansionist Israeli entity? Give me a break!

Michael Murry
Reply with quote  #4 
What you said, Stan. You have succinctly stated the history of the zionist/crusader case in question and I cannot improve upon your summation.

With all due respect to our good friend Bob, though, his wildly misplaced Korean analogies deserve a detailed debunking. He sounds a lot like George Will on ABC's This Week gabfest denigrating Gaza because "it's only the size of Tijuana, Mexico" and "if the Mexicans had lobbed rockets into San Diego, just imagine what we would have done in response." Complete metaphorical crap like that. If I could have screamed at Mr Swill through my computer web-cast display screen, I would have hit him with: "So what? The Apartheid Zionist Entity (I refuse to employ that Orwellian biblical misnomer) currently occupies no more territory than New Jersey! So fucking what? And as we know from America's response to the Saudi-Arabian/Egyptian/Pakistani (i.e., al Qaida) attacks on 9/11/2001, had some Mexcans from Tijuana bombed some American buildings in San Diego, America would have attacked, leveled, and attempted to occupy for decades Buenos Aires, Argentina. So fucking what?" 

I could go on with genially debunking Bob's many fallacious analogies, and even turning them back upon him in rejoinder -- like zionist squatters using their own children as "human shields" by moving into Palestinian lands and "safe" houses where they know completely well rockets will shortly begin to fall on their children, et cetera -- but I'll have to pass on the too-easy opportunity for the present. I need to finish up two gargoyle relief sculpture/paintings and install a stove-hood and exhaust duct in my wife's kitchen-under-remodelling. I'll get back to this conversation shortly, though, not that I think my own views or solutions will ever make a dent in the apartheid zionist propaganda that has now rendered America a bankrupt willing slave to its own pariah parasite, leaving both "nations" partners in perfidy for all the world to see and loathe. 
Bob
Reply with quote  #5 
Sorry, ol' lovies, Stan & Mike, I don't think the analogies poor at all, provided you start from a position "in reality." The reality is not your version of Zionist history but the fact that reality keeps evolving from its past though it does keep shadows of it which continue to exert influences both unconscious and deliberated. You and many Arabs continue to wake up in those shadows, every day largely by choice. Few Palestinians can wake up enough to see what choices they actually may have, especially under the influence of fanatical agitators and foreign mind-fuckers both Islamic and secular who think they will benefit from chaos, in the long run. You and they can well examine the causes of why you want to make whatever choices you've made, at levels both of perception and judgment. Naturally enough, like the rest of us, you likely suppose you have a monopoly on clarity & sufficiency of information and fairness in judging it.

The fact is, Israel is real and here to stay -- until a cluster of H-bombs wipes it out. Due to viewers who assess from shadow, mistaking it for light (like Paul), that dire end cannot be discounted. Both sides at issue seem to have insoluble existential problems. It may be natural for many habitual liberals to side with "underdogs". We have to assess our own identities, hopes for our future and decisions about what can be accepted into that future. I choose against Islam and that world dominion which too many Arabs & Islamicists seek, at least covertly. I am overt in preferring Western culture undestroyed. We all want peace, categorically. But, you show me no way to achieve it. If the Jews let down prematurely, the pan-Arabists & Muslim Brotherhood with Iran, etc., will keep nibbling at them until Israel gets eaten away.

As a last point, note that as many Palestinians AND Israelis as can get motivated to plan well and save enough, choose to get out of Hell and settle elsewhere. Alas, maybe they all need the aid of wealthy foundations and philanthropists world-wide.
Now, come across, guys! Show me a real program to cure Hell!
Michael Murry
Reply with quote  #6 
First of all, Bob old buddy, let me express my gratitude to you for neatly focusing our minds on some excellent examples of questionable pseudo-argumentation -- especially question-begging and the ruse of the straw man. I could go on for quite some time debunking individually bad dialectics, but to save time I'll get right down to where I basically come from on this issue. (I'll get back to "reality" or "facts on the ground" -- as these ebb and flow throughout crusader history -- in another posting later).
 
Please understand that -- as an American -- I do not recognize any claims to national legitimacy based on either (1) the presumed "unique" racial superiority of any tribe or (2) Single Spook Animism of any variety. The Constitution of my own country -- America -- specifically prohibits me or any or any other American from denying individual rights and privileges to others, or bestowing the same, based upon either of those two bogus "principles" listed above. As a matter of fact and reality: the Apartheid Zionist Entity rests its whole untenable argument for "existence" precisely on both: a self-styled "master race" or "chosen people" AND barbaric metaphysical mumbo-jumbo; racism AND religion. It escapes me how anyone who calls himself or herself an "American" can possibly support a "nation" founded expressly on these two completely un-American premises. I trust, then, that you will understand why I consider your support for the A.Z.E. quite possibly "Israeli" but not in any way "American." I really don't think that you have thought this important distinction through to its obvious conclusion. Practically the entire known world outside of the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E. already has. For my part, I have no intention of allowing the un-American A.Z.E. to make anything like an "Israeli" out of a true American like me. I know the difference and I know why I know it. 
 
In preparation for my next point, please consider as prologue the disreputable dialectics which you have -- perhaps unconsciously -- chosen to employ to little, if any, good effect. As John Locke wrote long ago in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:
 

Quote:

The question being about a matter of fact, 'tis begging it to bring, as a proof for it, an Hypothesis which is the very thing in dispute: by which one can prove anything ...


I'll let you rest from reading now, but in my next posting I will continue this deconstruction of question-begging by asking you to reconsider what it means when you demand of us: "Now, come across, guys! Show me a real program to cure Hell!" while on the other hand you also demand: "I WANT ALL OUR DEMONSTRATORS IN FRONT OF S.F. CITY HALL TO GIVE ME AN HONEST, WORKABLE SOLUTION SHORT OF DEMANDING ISRAELIS LEAVE THEIR OWN LAND!" Tomorrow, I'll come back to this popular conflicted method of asking for an answer while simultaneously ruling out its very possibility.

(And Hint: my own solution involves inviting the Apartheid Zionist Entity to invade America and set up shop in an "indian nation" territory the size of New Jersey. Oh, what the hell, let's just MAKE it New Jersey. The soon-to-face-expropration-and-homelessness Americans of New Jersey won't mind. They can just move into outdoor toilet refugee camps in neighboring Pennsylvania. Many Americans, after all, just love apartheid zionists and would do absolutely anything in their power to see that Americans, and not Palestinian Arabs, foot the bill for "guilt" about something that happened to European jews in WWII that neither Americans nor Palestinian Arabs had anything to do with.) 



Later ...


Stan
Reply with quote  #7 
Yo Guys,

I admit heartily that my dialectical skills are limited in the face of Bob and Mike. But hey, my title for this thread could not have been more appropriate. I have said all I am going to say about my feelings for the AZE as Mike has so appropriately named the vassal entity somewhere in the Middle East. The metaphors pour out at us, burr under the saddle, fly in the ointment, catch 22, rotten apple in the barrel, black sheep (plural or singular), odd man out etc etc etc. They all apply to an entity parked by a guilt-ridden West in the midst of an Arab culture. Oh BTW Bob, what kind of imperialist dream are you having about preferring the culture of the west? Of course we prefer the culture of the west but does that mean that we should impose that culture on a part of the world that rejects it? I didn't know that you were British Bob. I always thought of you as the liberal poet of the Bay Area of Tolerance and Knowledge. Next thing we'll be hearing out of you is the word, coined by the likes of Fucks News, Islamofascists. Perhaps youu were about to say it but figure you would save it for the right moment?

Oh well, while Mike tends his gargoyles and Bob ponders the end of Arab civilization (it was a great civilization to have brought mathematics to the besotted medieval west), I am going for a swim.

Michael Murry
Reply with quote  #8 

Regarding your title for this thread, Stan, Robert Scheer (formerly of the Los Angeles Times ) doesn't think he hears much of a "hue and cry" -- or much of any protest, really. Although our good buddy Bob seems a bit exercised at the exceedingly few squeaks of conscience coming out of so very few Americans in San Francisco, Mr Scheer asks today at his Truthdig.com web site:

 

Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090106_why_do_so_few_speak_up_for_gaza/

Others can read this little piece of sanity if they wish, but I just wanted to point out what I consider the truly sqalid "reality" (as Bob likes to call it) of this overwhelmingly deafening silence from official and corporate (pardon the redundancy) America. For example, yesterday I saw a news report on CNN International where some docile American reporters stood on the AZE side of the closed border with Gaza and frankly admitted that the AZE (our "stalwart ally," in Barack Obama's mellifluous misnomer) would not let them into the Palestinian enclave because spokespersons for the AZE wanted to control whatever information came out regarding the savage collective punishment now devastating the lives of so many Palestinian Arabs who cannot even run away. "We'd like to report the situation to you," the reporters bleated like sheep at a shearing, "but the [AZE] won't let us." Pathetic.

Karl Marx once famously said that the capitalist will sell you the very rope that you hang him with, but only Americans will borrow billions from the Chinese to pass along as a gift to apartheid zionists in a foreign country who laughingly use the lavish largesse to put a muzzle on the Americans' own mouths. Worse than pathetic. 
 
Back to the stuff on "dialectics" -- what Schopenhauer called not "Logic," but "the art of intellectual fencing used for the purpose of getting the best of it in a dispute" -- in another post. 

Bob
Reply with quote  #9 
Dear fellows! I enjoy your coming at me like terriers, it's like old times. Talk about terrorism, we do it verbally. Well, I'm sure, Mike, I need all those lessons in rhetoric, the logic of argument, the forensic histrionics of fallacious & sophistic debate.

Yes, when I hear you unlimber about the injustice at founding the state of Israel, I have to agree t'was badly done, but seemed a solution at the time. Europe could have sent their Jews to Australia, but the Aussies would likely have objected without huge indemnification. Try not to duck the issue by ad hominem attack or sidestep off into the injustices of history. What can be really be done about the Mideast conflict besides tell me I pose an insoluble problem about which you can only bluster?

Really, guys, if you want to keep waking up in the shadowy darkness of past events which cannot be changed, why not fret about the shady foundations of our own United States? Equally profitable all around, I'm sure. The Indian nations simply are not going to win a reversal of history, with or without our help. A little goodness & mercy here and there, a gesture toward justice for this few or that few.

I see no solution for Israel/Palestine and suspect you see none, either. Pacem.
Stan
Reply with quote  #10 
Bob,

I agree that we should stop harking back to the mistakes of the past but what about Santayana's history proverb? Are we to forget the past at the expense of the future?

A solution does seem difficult but it is not impossible. IMO Israel is an expansionist nation and religiously founded, something like their nemesis Iran. Religiously founded nations have a bad history and unless Israel changes its policy it too shall perish. A possible solution to the problem is the demographic time bomb that Israel really fears. Arabs in Israel are reproducing at a far greater rate than Israelis. But that will allow for too much time. Palestinians are dying at too high a rate right now under fire from US made weapons. BTW next time I hear some American saying about the Arabs "Why do they hate us?", I will laugh in their face.

They could start by observing the many UN resolutions that decree their settlement policy illegal. US billionaires like M Bloomberg have been donating (out of guilt that they did not perish with their ancestors I suspect) money for settlement construction for years. The only attempt I have ever seen to put a cap on settlement construction was when George Sr was president. In his finest hour he actually had the balls to stand up, even though briefly, to the Israeli Lobby. He was severely castigated and quickly retreated. Every president since has either bowed to the Israeli Lobby or the crazy evangelicals that think supporting Israel will lead to second coming of Christ.. Jimmy Carter is a pariah because he has written the truth about the Mideast problem. Good grief!

In light of all this craziness, shouldn't the US vassal state step in and say no more free lunch unless settlements are imediately dismantled? As Mike says the US is broke and is buying favors with the Israeli Lobby by borrowing from the Chinese. How crazy can it get?

As you say a little kindness here or there might be the best we can do for this situation. But first we have to recognize what is going on and what went on before to ascertain a competent policy.

Michael Murry
Reply with quote  #11 
As a bit of a change in style, if not tone:

I didn't think I could write poetry anymore. I thought I had lost all possible inspiration, what with the dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee Deputy Dubya Bush soon absconding from the American Presidency with his unearned get-out-of-jail-free card. I mean, what could I possibly write about more lurid and unbelievable than the pathological perp who began and ended his eight year reign of terror by unleashing first Ariel Sharon and then Netanyahu/Tzipi/Barak on the Palestinian Arabs, saying from alpha to omega: "Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things." Yeah. Quite some show of "force" by one side, but not much bloody clarity. 

Yesterday, I made the mistake of reading one of Robert Fisk's reports on the volunteer rescuers and doctors (many European) who now find themselves frantically sifting through smoldering rubble in Gaza only to find dazed and bloodied Palestinian children sitting passively and disconsolately beside the stiff and bloated corpses of their dead parents. I couldn't sleep at all last night and today I had to go for several long walks just to settle the rage and shame that I felt for my government and its shameless, feckless support for the pariah parasite -- well, you know: that nefarious name that I cannot bring myself to utter even silently to myself.

Finally, I turned to Percy Shelly's famous "Ozymandias" for consolation; reflecting upon its timeless imagery of vast, empty failure mocking those in positions of power who thought their "works" would long outlast the desert that in time enveloped their ruined relics. Then, for my own poor part -- as a purely therapeutic exercise -- I managed (in homage to Shelley's sonnet format):

http://themisfortuneteller.blogspot.com/2009/01/cozy-scandalous.html

I realize that nothing I do or say can overcome the enormous wealth and vested propaganda interests that propel America ceaselessly towards a further death-embrace with the terrible tar-baby that I choose to call the Apartheid Zionist Entity. Every time I see a picture of a hopeless, desperately unemployed Arab teenager throwing a rock at an AZE tank bulldozing his house, I know how this will eventually end. "The terrible worm in his iron cocoon" (as the Arabs called the last group of heavily armored European crusaders eight centuries ago) enjoyed a brief but transient 250 years trying to "exist" in domination of those who would not ever accept the infidel as overlord. So for afficionados of the AZE to somehow suppose that a mere 60 years of interloping intransigence means some sort of "ownership" in that part of the world, well, I just don't think they have much of a developed sense of history. As Faulkner said: "The past isn't history. It isn't even past."

Anyway, I feel just as ineffectual now as I did yesterday; but at least I managed to turn some of that awful grief and loathing into fourteen lines of iambic pentameter. Perhaps I've still got a little of the old versifier left in me after all. "Turn your pain into creative power," my wife Carol always advises me. I don't know about the power part, but I do think it helps a bit to put a little rhythm and rhyme together. Sometimes it keeps those Vietnamese and Arab faces from blending too seamlessly into one screaming indictment of me and the country I once called home.     
Bob
Reply with quote  #12 
Okay, dear buddies, now I'm liking the tones of this exchange. Mike, your sweet love, Carol, is so so so absolutely right. Your "Cosy Scandalous" is right decent verse and good therapy. How I would like to see all of you again. BTW, I haven't seen Kate since a year ago, New Year's Eve. Is she away somewhere or just not posting? I seem to have been too busy, this last year, to keep in touch with people, even my second circle of relatives! I've put out three books of poems since Flying Apples, Falling Parasols. Two more, and one of prose essays, are ready, right now. Oh, yeah: I'm Library Board selected and Mayor appointed Poet Laureate of Benicia, 2008 to 2010! Believe that? Now I have to watch out for my public image!

Stan, certainly Santayana was right, we mustn't forget the past (yes, history & the past are distinct) but it won't serve us well to stay emotionally locked in our sense of error and injustice. Remember, but stay present and prospectively hopeful. Yeah, Mike, I agree people's heads are historically screwed up on every side. Part of the trouble is, each new generation starts off as a fresh slate except for getting screwed over by their elders' wrecked perspectives.

No matter how everyone arrived at today, the good, spiritually perceptive people (wherever they happen) know how to resolve every social problem with each other. The obstacle is, those other folks. No side of a conflict ever has a monopoly of self-cleansing folks, but all sides have plethora of self-justifying folks who need to keep painting others with dirt and blame. If we could get good Israelis in control of the hard cases and good Palestinians in control of their wild bunch, a solution would rise up easily. Could that happen, we might see hope for humankind. Alas.

And, Mike, I well see what you mean by the AZE. It's substantiated fact. Still, our own semantic principles (if nothing else) make us see distinction between AZE and the conglomeration of Israeli citizens, all of different generations, livelihoods, views, hopes, beliefs and religiosity versus secularity. Moreover, I have to take exception with you about the emphasis you put on the theocratic/religious basis of Israel. That, too, is mixed. Israel's origin & teleology is less religious than ethnic. Yes, the ethnic basis derives from religion, historically, but jewish identity is broader, more eclectic, voluntary and so increasingly secular as to have become a major problem for religious Jewry and a considerable stimulus to orthodoxy who see much falling away. It looks to me as if Israeli polity & judiciary are nearly as secular as ours.

I think what this implies is, Israel is no more a "Jewish State" than a jewish support agency, and no more so than the United States is a Christian Nation apart from the fantasies of Christian fundamentalists of far-right default.

With commiserative compassion for all the world's sufferers, let me enclose my own most recent effort at verse, a 15-line sonnet (yes, there is legitimate basis for 15 and 16 line sonnets, as you may remember. Just as with the 14-line sonnet, the longer ones find validation only in readers.




 
Attached Files
pdf A_Green_Identity.pdf (20.44 KB, 10 views)

Michael Murry
Reply with quote  #13 
Thanks again, Bob, for joining in the discussion. I wish I could do justice to your comments in only a few short quips and sound-byte morsels, but I can't. I will give expository reasoning another try, though, trusting that you'll bear with me for the extended disquisition I think necessary in order to adequately and fairly addess your expressed views.

Do try to understand -- as I assume you do -- that I bear no animosity towards you personally just because you have chosen to present to us few readers here the official U.S./A.Z.E. propaganda line. If anyone has to bring together in one convenient place (for easy critique) many of the most outstanding examples of bad "argumentation" ever perpetrated upon the unwary, then I prefer that old and esteemed friends like you do the dialectical deed. You have graciously volunteered some of your time and effort, and I appreciate the historical, logical, and philosophical self-sacrifice involved. 

You and Stan and Kate and Don have known me long enough to have at least suspected by now that I take language and rigorous thinking seriously. I have spent the last decade assiduously attempting -- with some success, I might add -- to not only appreciate Alfred Korzybski's general semantics, but to put its lessons and principles into practice in everything I write. I have literally thousands of essays posted on PBS (and other) bulletin boards to offer as evidence in support of this last statement. As well, I have deeply studied relevant authorities on the subject of linguistic analysis and reasoning, from Charles Sanders Peirce and F. C. S. Schiller (among the Pragmatists) to I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke (among the literary critics) to Fuzzy Logic engineers like Bart Kosko to neuroscientists like Gerald Edelman to novelist/semiotics-theoreticians like Umberto Eco, et al. Even now as I write this I have before me (for easy reference) heavily annotated, underlined, and dog-eared copies of Arthur Schopenhauer's nineteenth-century essay "The Art of Controversy" as well as Professor T. Edward Damer's classic little text, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: a guide to fallacy free arguments. I don't expect you to take my words as seriously as I take yours, Bob, but do understand that I've made some effort not to waste your valuable time reading my own thoughts on things.

To take up a typical example of how I approach my discussions with you, Bob, I will begin with your most recent posting and go through it (in no special order) taking up some of your previous statements for supportive references where I think appropriate. So you say, right off the bat, so to speak:

"I enjoy your coming at me like terriers, it's like old times. Talk about terrorism, we do it verbally."
 
Here, you start out by genially (or ironically) imputing to Stan and I vicious animal characteristics and then you proceed to lump us into some category of verbal "terrorists." Pretty blatant and sloppy ad hominem argumentation, Bob -- and in only your first two sentences. I will credit you, though, with attempting the sometimes-effective rhetorical -- i.e., "persuasive" -- technique of subtly co-opting the reader's perspective through employing the first-person-plural "we." (Personally, I would prefer that you spoke for yourself.) The rhetoric fails in my case, of course, because I do not consider myself a "verbal terrorist" in any sense of that phrase, even as I acknowledge your right to so designate your own self if you please. (If you wish, though, you can call me a "semiotic guerrilla," on the grounds that "one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'.") Anyway, I always keep mentally-handy against the co-optive "we" that famous conversation by the Lone Ranger and Tonto when surrounded by hostile aboriginal indians. You know the one I mean.
 
Intrepid Masked Man: "It looks like we're in big touble now, Tonto."
 
Faithful Aboriginal Sidekick: "What do you mean, "we," white man?"
 
I know you do not relish having me "lecture" you on the distinction between Logic (the reasoned search for discoverable truth) and Dialectic ("the art of intellectual fencing for the purpose of getting the best of it in a dispute" -- as Schopenhauer put the case) but I have always credited you with enough background in general semantics (and good reading, generally) to maintain the intellectual equanimity required in serious discussion. As the Buddha said, you cannot give offense to anyone unwilling to take it. (Note the active, transitive and responsible nature of the verb "to take.") Neither you nor anyone else can offend me because I refuse to grant you that power over my own thinking through nothing more demanding on your part than the easy utterance of verbal "noises" or the scribbling of alphabetic "spell marks" (as Korzybski called meaningless language, spoken or written). Again, though, as I have gone to great lengths to make clear: I do not confuse you personally with the views you express. I address your views, and I expect that you will demonstrate the intellectual detachment required in most civilized "non-terrorist/terrier" circles.
 
Reviewing all this elementary semantic "verbal terrorist" stuff reminds me of something Condoleeza Rice once said in exasperation during a White House meeting with the unctuous neocon factotem Douglas Feith (number three man in the Pentagram), whom General Tommy Franks unceremoniously dubbed "the stupidest fucking man on earth." (Franks now owns a "medal of freedom" and Feith now occupies a "teaching" sinecure at Georgetown University. Go figure.) Anyway, said Ms Rice (herself no slouch in the slavishly-pro-AZE camp): "Thanks, Doug; but if we want the Israeli position, we'll call in their ambassador." I sort of feel that same way whenever I discuss with fellow Americans the views of a foreign -- and distinctly un-American -- racist/religious "government" in no way concerned with the damage it has done to America and our credibility in this world. But I don't need to call in [the A.Z.E.]'s ambassador to get his/her official pronouncements, since I have already heard, ad nauseum, every bad dialectical dodge a veritable parade of such persons have spouted at me over the past five decades. As George Orwell said of such "arguments": every knowledgeable person "knows them off, backwards." What he said ...
 
Moving right along, you then say:
 
"When I hear you unlimber about the injustice at founding the state of Israel, I have to agree t'was badly done, but seemed a solution at the time. Europe could have sent their Jews to Australia, but the Aussies would likely have objected without huge indemnification."
 
Frankly, Bob, I fail to understand what "solution at the time" you have in mind, let alone what "problem" such a "solution" ostensibly meant to address. I don't recall "Europe" "sending" "their" Jews anywhere in 1948. Yes, many Jews from Europe, Russia, and North Africa did choose to pack up and go someplace in 1948, but many more chose not to go anywhere; and certainly no one "sent" any Jews to British Mandate Palestine. What post-WWII government in Europe possessed anything like the power to do that? Here you go way too far in proffering your implicit assumptions -- which legions of people the world over do not share. But to elucidate the more interesting (to me) general point about dialectics at issue here:
 
Note the Korzybskian "scare quotes" I have placed around words and phrases of questionable validity. I have done this to illustrate -- no lecture intended -- what experienced dialecticians call "the fallacy of Inference from a Name or Description." As Professor Damer explains:
 
"This fallacy consists in assuming that descriptive or identifying words or phrases attached to people or things constitute a sufficient reason for drawing conclusions about the objects to which the names or descriptions refer." 
 
As I have tried to illustrate by choosing my own descriptive phrase "Apartheid Zionist Entity" in preference to that biblical/mythological other name many (including yourself) choose to uncritically employ, I do not accept any conclusions drawn from sloppy "arguments" based on "premises" and "terms" which someone else has chosen (or just accepted as "received") without the slightest effort to examine them for relevance, let alone actually subjecting them to rigorous definition. Here, even a moderate use of Korzybski's question-mark semantic device would work wonders. I can still remember my junior high school Social Studies teacher (in 1959) putting up two pairs of fingers in the air to physically demonstrate what the necessary disclaimer "so-called" means when trying to deconstruct and understand what other people say. I'll bet that today you could hardly find a handful of college graduates who knew even this little bit about what Korzybski called "the general protective psycho-physiological measure," or (more simply) "consciousness of abstracting." Buddhists just speak of "awareness."   
 
So again, and on quite an elementary level, I will repeat that I do not in any way passively assume the unexamined implications of the terms you used in your second set of sentences: namely, "Europe," "problem," "solution," "sending," and "their" -- et cetera. As a matter of fact and history, some European, Russian, and North African Jews chose to descend on British Mandate Palestine for the express purpose of displacing and dispossessing the Arab inhabitants of that region, but the responsibility for that act and its consequences rests upon them and their choice, not on anyone else who didn't in 1948 -- and doesn't today -- view Jews generally as "a problem" that requires a "solution" which just conveniently happens to absolve zionists of what they chose to do but wish to blame others for imposing upon them. As a matter of what Schopenhauer called "Controversial Dialectic," the ancient fallacy employed by zionists here goes by the name of "Shifting the Burden of Proof." Nothing more.
 
OK. I think that about does it for only the first few of your sentences, Bob. I think I've done them about as much justice as they fairly deserve, and perhaps even given them a little extra consideration. You have generously provided us with much more semantic food for productive deconstruction than I have time for today, and I don't want you to think that I haven't read each and every one of your words looking for what benefit I can gain from them, but I'll save my thoughts on those for another posting. Carol wants me to go now and help her install an exhaust duct on her new kitchen stove hood that I mounted to a wall yesterday. Thanks again for giving me some semiotic material to work on for awhile. The time spent did take my mind off all those dead Arab kids in that bombed-out UN school in Gaza. I think I can get through the day now. How I will get through tomorrow remains "TBD," as the existentialists so convinced of "being" might say.  
 

 


 
Bob
Reply with quote  #14 
Mike, I truly admire your energy and persistence in quest of intellectual integrity. I hope you never become so wholly serious as to lose all sense of humor. I'm sure you feel my jocularity in opening remarks are kidding. Calling you two "dogs" even indirectly or "terrorists" self-inclusively could not be put or taken seriously. Psycho-physical as well as intellectual integrity require we keep "standing tall enough" to smile and return repartee in suit. After all, we are in effect playing here in our adult surrogate for a sandbox. I'd agree, we should keep sand out of each other's teeth.

I also appreciate your offering me some mental resistance. I don't get much, anymore. People won't even say what they feel from my poems when I read in public, they just applaud, but then, they applaud everyone almost equally, even the novices and old duffers. I hope you felt my sonnet was also decent verse and good therapy. . .

Regarding: "When I hear you unlimber about the injustice at founding the state of Israel, I have to agree t'was badly done, but seemed a solution at the time. Europe could have sent their Jews to Australia, but the Aussies would likely have objected without huge indemnification." You object correctly. This was too glib an effort to close off part of the subject. (a.) "solution at the time" indicates there is seldom enough time to craft solutions. For a number of "statesmen" involved, part of the "solution" was to satisfy uproar and get the Zionists off their backs. The Zionist were not intent on establishing a permanent injustice burdening the future of Palestinian arabs but on making a safe haven for Jews. Alas, the unforeseen, unintended consequence of lacking sufficient competence. Like the Bushites in thrall to neocons. Ridiculously glib is the "sending" of Jews to Australia. I chose an outlandish scenario, I suppose, to highlight the outlandishness of any destination contrary to the long-engineered & established wish of the Jews themselves (a romantic dream of return to the womb) to live in their ancient capital of lost glory, perhaps, but also a seemingly-attainable escape from their recently-experienced Hell in Europe. (We both remember from our Gen. Sem. that the matter referred to may be more complex & many-faceted than we can readily verbalize.

By the way, I well know that our friendship is not to be shaken by mere written sounds.
I also know well that you have the ability, Mike, to deconstruct or controvert about any argument of series of statements you care to take on. (But, you are not alone in that. Which is why, regarding criticism in poetry, I tell people that the attitudes of critical analysis and appreciative understanding must go "hand-in-hand," with effort of appreciation proceeding a little ahead of analysis so that critique does not happen prior to one's textual understanding.)

I'm sorry to see you seeming to limit yourself to a concept of dialectics as mere skill at argument, a rhetorical power-play or exercise in sophistry. I usually think of dialectics as an honest revolving of subject through different viewpoints or frames with the aim of "seeing fully" and finding at last the truth of a matter; the philosophically Socratic method which we all value more than ingenious "spin." The two, of course, can, perhaps must, also
go hand-in-hand.

That's all I can respond to, tonight. It's quarter after one a.m. and tomorrow's a busy day.
Cheers to you both.




Bob
Reply with quote  #15 
Mike, I truly admire your energy and persistence in quest of intellectual integrity. I hope you never become so wholly serious as to lose all sense of humor. I'm sure you feel my jocularity in opening remarks are kidding. Calling you two "dogs" even indirectly or "terrorists" self-inclusively could not be put or taken seriously. Psycho-physical as well as intellectual integrity require we keep "standing tall enough" to smile and return repartee in suit. After all, we are in effect playing here in our adult surrogate for a sandbox. I'd agree, we should keep sand out of each other's teeth.

I also appreciate your offering me some mental resistance. I don't get much, anymore. People won't even say what they feel from my poems when I read in public, they just applaud, but then, they applaud everyone almost equally, even the novices and old duffers. I hope you felt my sonnet was also decent verse and good therapy. . .

Regarding: "When I hear you unlimber about the injustice at founding the state of Israel, I have to agree t'was badly done, but seemed a solution at the time. Europe could have sent their Jews to Australia, but the Aussies would likely have objected without huge indemnification." You object correctly. This was too glib an effort to close off part of the subject. (a.) "solution at the time" indicates there is seldom enough time to craft solutions. For a number of "statesmen" involved, part of the "solution" was to satisfy uproar and get the Zionists off their backs. The Zionist were not intent on establishing a permanent injustice burdening the future of Palestinian arabs but on making a safe haven for Jews. Alas, the unforeseen, unintended consequence of lacking sufficient competence. Like the Bushites in thrall to neocons. (b.) Ridiculously glib is the "sending" of Jews to Australia. I chose an outlandish scenario, I suppose, to highlight the outlandishness of any destination contrary to the long-engineered & established wish of the Jews themselves (a romantic dream of return to the womb) to live in their ancient capital of lost glory, perhaps, but also a seemingly-attainable escape from their recently-experienced Hell in Europe. (We both remember from our Gen. Sem. that the matter referred to may be more complex & many-faceted than we can readily verbalize.

By the way, I well know that our friendship is not to be shaken by mere written sounds.
I also know well that you have the ability, Mike, to deconstruct or controvert about any argument of series of statements you care to take on. (But, you are not alone in that. Which is why, regarding criticism in poetry, I tell people that the attitudes of critical analysis and appreciative understanding must go "hand-in-hand," with effort of appreciation proceeding a little ahead of analysis so that critique does not happen prior to one's textual understanding.)

I'm sorry to see you seeming to limit yourself to a concept of dialectics as mere skill at argument, a rhetorical power-play or exercise in sophistry. I usually think of dialectics as an honest revolving of subject through different viewpoints or frames with the aim of "seeing fully" and finding at last the truth of a matter; the philosophically Socratic method which we all value more than ingenious "spin." The two, of course, can, perhaps must, also
go hand-in-hand.

That's all I can respond to, tonight. It's quarter after one a.m. and tomorrow's a busy day.
Cheers to you both.




Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!