From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 00:53:06 BST
(To all who are following this thread, thanks for your patience and
responses).
Hi Platt,
I don't want to take up space in this forum arguing American foreign
policy. There are plenty of other places to do that. And Chomsky
certainly doesn't need me to defend his positions. If you want to
know what he thinks, ask him. He's very good about answering
correspondence, both inky and electronic. He's easy to reach at
MIT. Or read one of his books, all the way through, and verify
references for yourself. Start with something small, say 9-11, if
you'd like to find out what he really thinks about that event. Or,
if you're feeling more energetic, read Understanding Power, about 450
pages with over 500 pages of notes and references and pretty
convincing historical record available online.
My guess is that you don't want to know what he thinks, really, and
why. Unfortunately, no one is going to hold you down and pour truth
into your brain.
Nevertheless, I intersperse, briefly, and finally, below:
- -
ph-5/5/04
You brought up Chomsky and added an arguable assertion, not me.
msh
And you attacked him, ad hominem, and offered no argument.
msh-5/4/04
>> Certainly you can agree or disagree with Chomksy, but to attack
him ad hominem, and dismiss him as if he were some school child who
hadn't done his homework makes you look ridiculous. Too bad.
ph-5/5/04
By your lights I'm in good company because no one looks more
ridiculous than Chomsky when he asserts that America is "a leading
terrorist state." Too bad, indeed.
msh
Again, ad hominem attack. No argument. There are plenty of people
besides Chomsky who take this position, William Blum, Michael
Parenti, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson, John Pilger, on and on. All
have presented solid cases, backed by historical record. Take a
look.
msh-5/4/04
> What's ironic about your attack is that Chomsky certainly agrees
that all belief systems are necessarily based on uncertain premises.
Below is his recent response to a statement that science had proved
the impossibility of resurrection:
>
>
> **** BEGIN CHOMSKY
> Within the framework of our scientific knowledge,
> resurrection is next to impossible. But those who believe
> in resurrection wouldn't contest that. Their point is that
> science provides only limited understanding of reality, and
> there's no way to argue against that conviction.
ph
Pirsig agrees that science provides only a limited understanding of
reality and argues convincingly for that conviction. As I said,
Chomsky should read and try to absorb ZMM and Lila. One of the
greatest thinkers of the 20th century might learn something. :-)
msh
Sigh. Again a snide pejorative. He may well have read those books.
At any rate, Pirsig and Chomsky are in agreement about the
limitations of science. So?
nac via msh
> My own feeling is that it's not wise to hold irrational
beliefs.
ph
No belief is more irrational than Chomsky's that there's moral
equivalence between the terrorists who attacked on 9-11 and the U.S.
msh
Next you'll be telling us that Chomsky supported Pol Pot, and denies
the holocaust. All the predictable and easily refutable cannards
that are trotted out like clockwork, wherever Chomsky is reviled but
not read.
Of course Chomsky makes no mention of such moral equivalence. I
doubt if he's ever even used the term, except in deconstructing it.
Again, read 9-11. There, he clearly states that the 9-11 attacks
were horrendous crimes, perhaps the greatest nearly instantaneous
murder of innocent civilians ever, outside of war. (He doesn't say
it, but I will: since the WWII firebombing of Dresden and the
nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) He then suggests that if
the US government is really interested in eliminating terrorism, it
should first stop engaging in it. Third, it might be a good idea to
find out the real reasons for the attacks, and address any
legitimate grievances. (Read Blowback and Sorrows of Empire by
Chalmers Johnson.) This is just common sense.
Sadly, if the number of lives lost is the measure, crimes of similar
and even greater magnitude have occurred and continue to occur
throughout the world. For example, even conservative estimates place
the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion of that all-
but-defenseless country, at more than 10,000. No, what distinguishes
the vector of the WTC attacks is not the magnitude, but the
direction.
nac via msh
> We all do so, necessarily, but we should always
> be willing to face challenges to them and revise them if we
> cannot meet those challenges. Religious beliefs don't have
> that property: they are held whatever the facts.
ph
Note the irony. Chomsky holds so-called 'facts' higher than
religious beliefs even though 'facts' (like religious beliefs) arise
from a belief system based on uncertain premises--a 'fact' Chomsky
concedes.
msh
In your cut and paste job you conveniently left out the relevant
first paragraph, where he contends that "in the empirical sciences
there are varying degrees of plausibility, in some cases extremely
high" and that this may the best we can achieve. His point, in what
you paste above, is that plausibility is apparently irrelevant to
religious belief. And... see below...
nac via msh
> That's not unique to religion. Unfortunately, it's a large
> component of the intellectual culture, at the "highest
> level" -- what Hans Morgenthau, the founder of realist
> international relations theory, called "our conformist
> subservience to those in power." It's enough to read the
> morning's newspaper or intellectual journals to find plenty
> of examples, which in my opinion at least, are far more
> dangerous than belief in resurrection.
ph
What's sauce for the goose . . . Many consider Chomsky's views far
more dangerous than belief in resurrection.
msh
Well, this is probably a good place to leave it. This time, rather
than argument, an appeal to unreferenced authority. Anytime the
legitimacy of power is questioned, the powerful, and those who
serve them, smear the questioner as crazy, deluded, dangerous. It's
an old frame.
Platt, or anyone else, if you are really interested in pursuing this
further, feel free to contact me at
markheyman@infoproconsulting.com. But, if you do want to take issue
with what Chomsky, or anyone, has said, please provide direct quotes,
with references, and I'll do the same.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom
Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and
the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Thu May 06 2004 - 00:51:18 BST