From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 22:53:46 BST
Dear Platt,
At last coming back to your posting of 18 May 2003 20:06:00 -0400.
I was very glad with your:
'On balance I would say we're closer in our views than apart.'
(given all our disagreements in the past). I hardly dare to spoil it with
replies to some of the points you made...
I'm not so sure if our main differences are our amount of 'faith in
universal collective action, such as through the U.N., to attain good ends'
or the strength of our 'belief ... in the brotherhood of man and the
feasibility of cooperation among all sects to achieve good ends'. I may be
just as sceptical and at times cynical about collective action and
cooperation as you and realistically assess that it is always very little
and very late what they achieve and NEVERTHELESS see that they are needed
for any way forward. As you wrote: 'look where mankind has come in a few
thousand years in spite of war, famine, pestilence and all the other horrors
inflicted by man and nature alike'. Would the achievements of mankind have
been possible without collective action and cooperation?
The 'let go, let God' attitude is a very strong agreement between us (as is
what you discovered before: 'The spiritual world is one single spirit who
stands like unto light behind the bodily world and who, when any single
creature comes into being, shines through it as through a window.').
It seems mainly misunderstanding on your part if you write:
'This is where you and I part company.'
in reply to my:
'When I see (or more likely read about) poor powerless people, I can't help
experiencing their pain and suffering in part as my own.'
Because when you go on:
'I can empathize and sympathize, but I can't experience what they
experience. ... Experience is personal, private.'
this 'empathy' and 'sympathy' is exactly what I mean with 'experiencing
their pain and suffering IN PART as my own'. Experience IS personal and
private and YET there are situations in which we feel absolutely certain
that others experience (or would experience) the same as we do. Like when
you are with a group in a fearfull situation or conversely 'sharing'
enthousiasm for a sport event you are watching... 'Experiencing the
experience of the others' is rhetoric exaggeration in one direction; calling
experience ONLY personal and private would be rhetoric exaggeration in the
opposite direction; the possibility (and unavoidability in the face of
poverty and powerlessness) of 'empathy' and 'sympathy' is where we -I think-
can meet in the middle.
You also wrote:
'I also part company with you about "oppression," the favorite word of those
who would like to profit from victimology. ... If an individual feels
oppressed, it is up to him to make the situation better. Millions have fled
their Godforsaken countries for a better life in Europe and the U.S.'
I already wrote about my non-subscription to victimology. The word
'oppression' was not essential in what I wrote. Given your allergy for the
word, let me translate:
'[empathy and sympathy in the face of poverty and powerlessness] motivate me
to do something. I don't know to what extent their pain and suffering is a
result of individual bad choices and should be neglected to enable them to
learn from it, but I'm sure you'll agree that this is only partially the
case. There are situations in which people's pain and suffering is
predominantly due not to their own bad choices, but to bad choices by
others, which they can't undo without outside help.'
Most Iraqis were NOT able to flee. Those that fled did not make the
situation better (except for themselves, IF they weren't turned away at the
entrances of Europe and the U.S.). A relatively large percentage of Iraqis
WERE admitted (at least in the Netherlands), but millions of others (from
other Godforsaken countries) were not or discovered (after being admitted or
after entering illegally) that the 'better life' they expected was outside
their reach (however hard they worked for it) or rather disappointing. The
lucky ones that fled and achieved a better life often only worsened the situ
ation for those they left behind. A country that has been 'drained' of its
most resourceful members and only longs for a 'better life' elsewhere (often
unjustified, to the extent that it is out of reach for them even if they
would be resourceful enough to get there) will not easily develop a 'better
life' for its inhabitants.
We can't expect individuals in a lot of Godforsaken countries to beat the
social and intellectual patterns of values there on their own. But they are
THEIR social and intellectual patterns and we will often not be able to help
them either. The only way to help them is through the social and
intellectual patterns we share.
You disagreed with my:
'"Individual autonomy and responsibility" are meaningless if you "let go,
let God"'
You replied:
'By responsibility I mean to suffer the consequences of my own choices. To
"let go" is one of those choices.'
Yes, but isn't it a choice to give up individual autonomy and responsibility
in a sense? In other words: once having made that choice (well, I manage to
do so temporarily only) don't 'individual autonomy' and 'responsibility' for
what God is doing through us feel 'suspended'?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 22:55:13 BST