Hi all,
it's not easy for an European to say "I am an American". I had doubts when
writing, all those who have followed few months ago the threads about democracy
and socialism and so on know I am not exactly a John Wayne fan. In facts, just
two days after my post, a famous (very leftist) anchor man here has entitled his
political talk show: "are we all Americans?", so at least I'm glad that my
sentence has a sense not only for me in this nightmare. I've heard from Jonathan
about "Star Spangled Banner" played at the Changing of Guards ceremony in
London. Another sign that many here in Europe are in many ways saying they also
are American, at least for one day.
JFK in the early sixties said he was a Berliner, and I guess it was not easy for
an American to say that, less than 20 years after WWII. But West Berlin was in a
strange situation then: a sort of western island immersed in the communist
Europe. And moreover the stupid division of that city was dramatic. JFK words,
more symbolic than substantial, had the worth to condemn the wall even before
condemning communism. He said he was a Berliner, not a West Berliner.
So why did I say I am an American? I have left a bit of my spirit under the
debris of the twin towers. Of course those living in the USA are more shocked
than me, but NYC is not merely the most important city in the USA. It's an
international city, and the (still unofficial) list talks of dozens and dozens
of Italians, British, Japanese, Koreans and so on. A colleague of mine was in
NYC just the week before, and I guess that the majority of us have more or less
something to deal with The City.
Cozens replied he is human, and of course it must be so ...:-) the problem is
that even terrorists are humans. Humans (usually male humans, don't ask me why)
can be very stupid and criminal. So it's not enough to state we are human. If I
have to choose (and it seems it's time to make choices), I am an American as I
can go to NYC and say that Bush is wrong now calling the nation to the arms, in
the name of a sort of Western Jihad against the evil. IMO he is trying to set up
a big confusion to hide a bunch of stupid mistakes committed by America in last
20 years (many of them committed by his father). Meanwhile, I think it would be
very dangerous for my person to go to Kabul and say in public that it's horrible
to thank God for what's happened. I am American as Maggie is Catholic, Rasheed
is Muslim, Platt is Rightist, and Andrew Connor is Communist... But, more than
this, we all western people are firstly individuals.
In my post I also wrote that I hope there will be ASAP one only side. I want to
assure everyone I'm not meaning, "we have to destroy them". I'm meaning I just
hope that ASAP all countries will recognize to all citizens those basic
intellectual principles Platt reminded us. This is the only globalization I'm
longing for, that is not exactly like to say "let's destroy them and replace
their God with Mac Donald's". I've always supported the idea of a multicultural
world, as only the balance of diverse experiences can trigger evolution. But
those cultures that don't assure the basic human rights should be changed.
Sadly, this means that even America and Europe have to change, as they use to
support a lot of dictatorships in the name of their own wealth.
I have found all the posts about the recent events of great value. Especially, I
agree with Horse that the menaces to our freedom can come also from our own
countries. Let's keep watchful.
====================
Now, few replies.
To Rasheed.
>>> R
But it comes more from simple human ignorance in presupposing Islam to be the
root of all these problems, when in actuality it can be seen as a solution to
all these problems. The same ignorance that is causing Palestinians and Afghans
to rejoice at this is the same ignorance that is causing Americans to
unjustifiably attack peaceful Muslims.
>>> M
Yeah, here we say: "evidently the mother of the stupids is always pregnant". Our
government has just approved a restriction for immigration. The result is that
now legal immigration and its consequent exchange of experience becomes more
difficult, while terrorists (notoriously illegal) will go on prospering.
=================
To Maggie
>>> Mag
I hope you'll excuse me for butting in.
>>> Mar
You're welcome Maggie. I know you are.... older than me :-) and I thank you for
your intervention.
>>> Mag
Now, I agree with Marco when he says this next part, with one difference:
Marco:
"terrorism is a crime against humankind. Or, in other words, a crime of a blind
social pattern against the basic values of the intellectual level."
maggie again:
I don't know that it was a BLIND social pattern.
Perhaps it's a particular INTELLECTUAL pattern that is blind, going off on its
own
tangent and not aware of the social and biological needs within the structures
that
support it.
>>> Mar
Well, Maggie, we can read it in diverse ways, according to our personal MOQ
understanding. Saying that terrorists are blind to the intellectual values does
not mean they don't use thought, mind, rationality, and intelligence. In order
plan and execute an airplane hijack, and destroy a tower, one has to be very
intelligent, rational and calm. I don't equate MOQ intellect and thought; IMHO
the intellectual level is not merely the application of those rational tools we
biologically own, but it's the application of all what's necessary (so not only
rationality: even emotions, if it helps) in order to pursue the individual
freedom from social constrictions. "Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of
travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent..." are the basic
principles upon which it is possible to stand up in front of society with a
critical attitude and proclaiming our individual freedom. Without them, no
intellectual level is possible.
Terrorists are blind to the intellectual values, as they don't see the value of
the individual. They could rent a Cessna and bomb the towers in the middle of
the night, with probably less risks to be discovered, almost no civil victims,
and even without losing their own life. But in their system of beliefs, the
individual has no value. " Killing a Morgan Stanley employee will hurt America,
who cares if he/she has voted for Al Gore; or if he/she is Korean or Italian?
So, killing 5000 workers is hurting America 5000 times... "
In few words, I do prefer to classify events, things, patterns according to
their purposes, not according their.... substance. An idea, even a very
intelligent and rational one, is not (Q-)intellectual if it's about killing
innocent individuals.
=====================
To Jonathan
>>> J:
We have to now accept the challenge of
trying to find meaning and quality to make sense of the chaos. . . . but I
don't think we should slip into simplistic interpretations.
marco wrote:
"It's more than a war: terrorism is a crime against
humankind. Or, in other words, a crime of a blind social pattern against the
basic values of the intellectual level."
With the greatest respect, this reminds me of David Buchanan's argument that
Truman's decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong because it was
based on social values.
I can't accept this. There is nothing wrong with social values per se.
Pirsig himself recognises the dangers of attacking social values. I see the
terrorist attack on the USA and all terrorist attacks as collisions between
conflicting social patterns. The framework that crowds people into tall
buildings in densely-populated cities, that flies thousands of people daily
in jet airliners, that lets people move and communicate freely via a fast
expanding array of technologies; I see all this as a social pattern. It is
important to recognise that the system that has evolved is a system that is
freely accepted by its participants, and valued by them.
But there are other social frameworks that rejects all of this. The people
who value these alternatives are the likes of Timothy McVigh, Bin Laden, and
the evil people who masterminded and executed the latest terrorist outrages.
This is not a conflict between levels, in fact, I've repeatedly expressed my
belief that there are no interlevel conflicts because each level is an
intellectual construct - its own world abstracted from experience in a
different way.
This is a conflict within the social level betweening two conflicting social
patterns, and personally I have little trouble in deciding which I value
more. . . . . and I am certain that I would have reached the same conclusion
before I read either of Pirsig's novels.
>>> M:
Hi Jonathan. I was not here at the times of the DMB argument you mention, so I
really don't know if I am in agreement with him or not. I agree with you when
you say that in social values there's nothing wrong per se. But when a social
purpose is pursued with almost no regards for the intellectual values, well it
is intellectually.... evil. I'm not attacking social values, I'm just claiming
that no social purpose should damage the individual rights, when possible. As
I've written in my reply to Maggie, I think that this kind of terrorism is blind
to the intellectual values. To a certain extent, it's like an earthquake or an
hurricane: we have to defend our biological lives from those inorganic menaces.
Of course we are before a social conflict. But, as said, I have no doubts, if I
have to choose, what's... less bad. Yes, I was able to decide even without
Pirsig's novels, but the MOQ gives me a more rational key to support my choice.
The West, with all its mistakes and failures and crimes, is a system in which
intellect can flourish. Here the intellectual/social interaction is a game in
which both intellect and society can in some occasions gain value. In other
systems, the intellectual/social interaction is much more conflictual.
Of course, it doesn't mean we have to accept this model we live within as it is.
Murdering innocent people is wrong, and that's valid in this occasion as it has
been in Hiroshima. I've spent words in many occasions to condemn the
American/Western attitude against Iraq, where the only safe is the only guilty:
Saddam. Let's face it: Bin Laden has been created by the USA in the attempt to
fight SSSR, with the ludicrous result that today the USA are probably planning
to pay Russia to invade Afghanistan again. The West is sadly paying today this
and other examples of bad policy towards the rest of the world. We should learn,
but many are far from that.
====================
To Platt.
>>> P:
I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and those
countries who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the moral
standing of germs and like germs must be deliberately and ruthlessly
annihilated by all means at our disposal. In the last century we did
precisely that to the terrorists of Germany, Italy and Japan. Now it is up
to a new generation to do that to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and all
other countries who harbor and support the new breed of international
criminals. Once again, civilization itself is at stake.
>>> M
As Osama Bin Laden has been created by America in the eighties, during the
Reagan/Bush era, I guess you will suggest G.W.Bush to annihilate his father,
too.
Dear Platt, this is not the first terrorist action in the world. Just, it's the
first time it happens live on TV. It is very probable that the CIA in connection
with Italian services provoked the death of 80 innocent victims, bombed at the
station of Bologna, Italy, in summer 1980. Bologna is, by the way, the city I
was born in, just 50 miles far from where I currently live. A times, it was
necessary to give a rightist shift to an evident Italian leftist drift: the
Communist party was near to the 40% of democratic consensus, and when people are
afraid, many claim order and move to the Rights. It happened. We have the same
proofs of what I have written as you actually have about those countries you
mention. Apparently, the American services were more efficient in the eighties.
According to what you have written, we should annihilate America. Don't cast
the first stone, Platt, you are not without guilt. You can't write that trial by
jury and habeas corpus are basilar, then state that Palestinians have the moral
standing of germs. I find your attitude, even if supported by the British
government (I don't think so), of no help. Invade them, and you will create a
bunch of new terrorists.
By the way, here are some examples of the enemies America fought recently (I did
not make a precise research, I just use my memory).
Hitler - Suicide in Berlin, under Russian bombing.
Mussolini - Killed in Dongo, Italy, by Italian anti-fascist partisans.
HiroHito - Dead very old in his bed in Tokyo, Japan.
Fidel Castro - Still wealthy in Cuba.
Muhammar al Gheddafi - Still wealthy in Libya.
Khomeini - Died very old in his bed in Iran.
Saddam Hussein - Still wealthy in Baghdad.
Slobodan Milosevic - Overwhelmed by a popular revolution, currently under trial
in Nederland.
Osama Bin Laden - We will see
... And then???
I have doubts about the actual ability of USA to directly annihilate the right
persons. Except for Salvador Allende, a Chilean democratically elected
president. Replaced by Augusto Pinochet, terrorist and dictator... but strangely
not an enemy.
=============
In the end, a thought. They say the market in the western world have replaced
God. Today, the only two voices screaming to avoid a new war are from the Pope
and from the market: both Catholics and stock exchange indexes don't like wars.
Curiously, I think that it is more probable that Bush will listen to the Market
than to the Pope, even if he doesn't miss any occasion to put the name of God in
vain in his discourses. The only problem is that he is paid by weapon and oil
firms (it's hard to say he has no personal interests in a war in Middle East).
So, should we pacifists believe in the Market, or in God, in order to avoid the
war?
Thank you all
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:30 BST