Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Mar 2 08:56:29 EST 2000
Article: 14370 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Diversity and the New World Order
Date: 2 Mar 2000 08:50:04 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <89lric$3mc$1@panix.com>
References: <38BDA30C@MailAndNews.com> <20000229.2319.645snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <89hmvv$isd$1@panix.com> <89knco$oc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952005005 146 166.84.0.226 (2 Mar 2000 13:50:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Mar 2000 13:50:05 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14370
In <89knco$oc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> johngpf@my-deja.com writes:
>Multi-culturalism is the repudiation of mankind, of the human, in
>favor of homo sapiens, of the animal. The super-intelligent animal.
>This is anti-humanism, the triumph of the instinctual over the moral,
>of blood over soul. Post-humanism, otoh, is the repudiation of
>mankind in favor of intelligence, the triumph of technology over
>morality, of rationalism over reason. Modernity has been the story of
>the struggle between these two different repudiations of human
>culture.
I don't think multiculti favors the human animal, it favors the
universal machine. It handles cultural differences by neutering them,
by making no culture dominant and thus each an instance of "heritage"
on the level of folk dancing. As a result all the serious work is done
by the formal institutions like world markets and transnational
bureaucracies that collectively constitute the emerging system of AI.
You're right that the abolition of humanity leads in two possible
directions, toward Hitler and toward Clinton. That by the way is why
the Left (meaning just about everyone respectable) is convinced that
rejection of multiculturalism must in essence be equivalent to Naziism.
>From their perspective that really is the only choice.
Just to round out these grand world-historical speculations, it seems
to me that the abolition of the human is a consequence of the abolition
of the transcendent. If God is abolished then man must create his own
ultimate law and the attempt to do so leads either to irrationalism or
to insane superrationalism. Neither can make sense of an in-between
creature like man, so man has to go.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Mar 2 08:56:30 EST 2000
Article: 14371 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Raimondo on McHate
Date: 2 Mar 2000 08:55:11 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <89lrrv$4lf$1@panix.com>
References: <38E40A69@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952005311 243 166.84.0.226 (2 Mar 2000 13:55:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Mar 2000 13:55:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14371
Have there been any published comments on how irrational all this is?
After all, if the ultimate standard is tolerance, and tolerance (it
turns out) requires intolerance, then it doesn't make much sense as an
ultimate standard. There ought to be some other ultimate standard, in
which case Bob Jones U, Haider, Vlaams Blok and whoever are not
blasphemers and there is no point shunning them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Mar 2 16:30:44 EST 2000
Article: 14374 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Diversity and the New World Order
Date: 2 Mar 2000 14:47:47 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <89mgh3$sr9$1@panix.com>
References: <38BF8CE4@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952026468 7404 166.84.0.226 (2 Mar 2000 19:47:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:47:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14374
"Reginald P. Forsythe II" writes:
> > After all, if the ultimate standard is tolerance, and tolerance (it
> > turns out) requires intolerance, then it doesn't make much sense as
> > an ultimate standard. There ought to be some other ultimate
> > standard, in which case Bob Jones U, Haider, Vlaams Blok and
> > whoever are not blasphemers and there is no point shunning them.
> Your ethnocentrism is showing.
Actually, all I needed to say is "that ultimate standard makes no
sense, even in the short run, so we ought to get rid of it and stop
treating those people as blaspheming heretics." The "ought to be"
wasn't intended to have any particular weight. If you want, make it
"we should have" and strike the following "ultimate."
Nonetheless,
> The quest for an ultimate standard, or even a logically coherent
> world view, is only a Western desideratum.
Is this so? It seems to me Confucius, the Buddha and the authors of
the Bhagavada Gita all propound ultimate standards for living and
coherent views of human life that support those standards. I agree
they don't claim all reality can be reduced to a coherent system and so
known to man. On the other hand Aquinas said we couldn't know the
essence of God, which for him was the most basic reality, and that has
certainly been a common enough view. Aristotle thought the demand for
certain and exact knowledge about the highest things was out of place,
and even Plato relied on mystic vision, he thought the Good was beyond
essence and so not knowable discursively. It does seem though that the
West has emphasized exact, comprehensive and systematic knowledge more
than others.
> Of course, an irony here is that it is precisely the Western quest
> for ultimate standards which is a symptom of the more general disease
> of universalism, and it is the triumph of universalism which is
> killing its Western primogenitor.
I would say rather that "universalism," which I take to be the belief
that ultimate standards can and in fact have been fully reduced to
human possession, is a degeneration of the quest for ultimate standards
which I think is a necessary aspect of human life. Surely some weak
form of universalism is necessary to identify say Gypsies or the Hairy
Ainu as fellow human beings to whom we owe something, if only not using
them as raw material in a pet food factory.
> > "Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
> Tully?
> I assume you mean Marcus Tullius Cicero, although my encyclopaedia
> informs me there was a Tully who wrote screenplays and novels in
> Hollywood, and who worked with Charlie Chaplin.
People don't talk about it, but MTC survived the proscriptions by
growing long hair and a beard and entering on a second career as the
Wandering Jew, eventually moving to LA and getting a job in the movie
industry.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Mar 3 07:12:48 EST 2000
Article: 14377 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Diversity and the New World Order
Date: 2 Mar 2000 17:37:15 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <89mqer$sbo$1@panix.com>
References: <38BF0468@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952036636 13036 166.84.0.226 (2 Mar 2000 22:37:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Mar 2000 22:37:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14377
"Reginald P. Forsythe II" writes:
> I also meant that the sort of proselytizing that is the mark of
> Western PC zealotry is only a Western phenomenon. PC is an ersatz
> religion, and its zealotry and intolerance derives ultimately from
> Judaism by way of Christianity.
And cancer derives ultimately from mitosis and no doubt abandonment of
the older and more natural unicellular way of life.
There were Buddhist missionaries, who made proselytes. Also, China has
tended to be culturally imperialistic. Plato invented something rather
like the Inquisition and the death penalty for some forms of obdurate
atheism. (See bk. x of the _Laws_.) Some say that Alexander and for
that matter the Romans thought they had some sort of civilizing
mission.
I agree that proselytizing has been more characteristic of the West and
of Semitic religions. All I would claim is that the differences are a
matter of degree and no doubt partly due to geography -- if there
aren't multiple centers of civilization in reasonable proximity to each
other there won't be as much occasion for proselytizing.
Intolerance is an element of all ways of life. If you're inward
turning like Indian castes or orthodox Jews today you'll be
exclusionary rather than proselytizing. If you're more outgoing you'll
likely try to bring people around to your way of seeing things. I
don't see anything wrong with that in principle. It seems to me some
inclination to proselytize is normal and good. After all, if you don't
think your views are good and helpful, why hold them? And if you think
they are, why not give others the benefit? Like anything else of
course it can be carried to abusive lengths.
> I hadn't heard that Cicero was Jewish.
The lost tribes, you know. The American Indians, the English, the
Japanese and also the Ciceros.
> the question of whether it will be possible even to simulate a human
> decision-making in machines. You say you think it is probably not
> possible, but don't say why.
I went into it a little. Thought involves something can't be fully
formalized. Roger Penrose gives some arguments in _The Emperor's New
Mind_. If AI were possible, by the way, then "universalism" -- the
belief that ultimate principles can be explicitly stated and fully
possessed by human beings -- would be correct. Or it seems that would
be the case if the principles of thought and thus of all possible
knowledge could be fully expressed in a computer program.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk@panix.com Thu Mar 2 09:00:19 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA05216;
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:00:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003021400.JAA05216@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=947367646&P=Yes&TL=946673354
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=947367646&P=Yes&TL=946673354
Status: O
Re: Feminism
Saturday, 08-Jan-2000 16:40:46
166.84.0.226 writes:
In my view "feminism" refers to a class of extreme opinions, and
it's possible to oppose extreme opinions in all sort of ways and
from all sorts of perspectives.
I haven't taken any position on votes for women or for that matter
who should have the vote in general. It seems to me that the view
that everyone should have the vote and denial of the vote is a
denial of humanity draws most of its support from a moral view I
reject and think makes no sense but is dominant today, the liberal
view that consent is necessary for moral obligation, that my
duties must somehow be traceable to an act of my will. So I'm not
shocked as you seem to be by proposals to limit suffrage and don't
think they reflect a judgement of categorical inferiority. To be a
voter is to hold a political office and who holds what political
offices is more a matter of prudence rather than of honoring those
who have the most worth in some ultimate sense. It's not an issue
I concentrate on though.
Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Thu Mar 2 09:01:19 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA05266;
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:01:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:01:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003021401.JAA05266@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943748714&P=Yes&TL=943722950
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943748714&P=Yes&TL=943722950
Status: O
Re: Americanism
Saturday, 27-Nov-1999 19:25:14
209.156.88.140 writes:
It's a puzzling issue. It's true I think that the liberal and
therefore anti-Christian elements of the American regime have
always been stated more explicitly, and in the end they are the
ones that have won, but other elements were real as well.
It's only since the 60s that the former have been viewed as the
sole legitimate polical principles in America. Remember that as
recently as the early 60s there were prayers in the public schools
and 10 years before that Supreme Court justices were still saying
in opinions that American institutions presupposed a Supreme
Being.
Not that everything was hunky-dory until 1968, or that the
principle of eliminating dogma from public life is necessarily
workable long-term. It does seem to me though that there has been
more to the American regime than Jacobinism, and that as practical
matter it's better to emphasize the aspects with which one can
agree, which will always be there since no society can exist
unless based in some ways on truth even if only implicitly. People
who claim the Founder's regime was in fact Christian and
Aristotelian may have an uphill argument in many ways but they do
I think have an argument.
Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Fri Mar 3 15:19:54 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA29841;
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:19:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:19:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003032019.PAA29841@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=941449593&P=Yes&TL=941408136
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=941449593&P=Yes&TL=941408136
Status: O
Re: Pat Buchanan, Conservatism, and Grace
Monday, 01-Nov-1999 04:46:33
166.84.0.226 writes:
It seems to me on the merits open borders are a bad thing and that
we would be better off with more restrictions on immigration and
transnational business. The basic reason I say that is that free
institutions and more generally a tolerable social life require a
certain degree of cultural coherence, sense of common history and
destiny, common loyalties and understandings, etc. Such things
don't have to be utterly uniform and rigid but rigid
monoculturalism doesn't seem to be the danger just now except
maybe the monoculturalism of mass commercial culture that the
undermining of particularism promotes.
As to Buchanan personally I don't know, partly because I haven't
seen or read that much of him (I don't watch TV or read any
publications in which he regularly appears.) The current political
culture is such as to put him in a bad light.
Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Fri Mar 3 15:20:24 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA29912;
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:20:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003032020.PAA29912@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943916718&P=Yes&TL=943722950
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943916718&P=Yes&TL=943722950
Status: O
Re: Re: Response to Jim Kalb
Monday, 29-Nov-1999 18:05:18
209.206.16.228 writes:
The issue it seems to me is whether there is anything to be gained
from not dropping out altogether.
If one doesn't, and attempts concretely and on a large scale
(larger than what sociologically would count as a small sect) to
act politically then he has to start with what is there.
If you start with what is there in America then it seems to me the
important thing is to realize that what has been explicit is only
part of the picture, and is radically at odds with what has been
implicit.
No society can last as American society has in fact lasted without
loyalty, sacrifice, commonly accepted transcendental principles
that are needed to motivate such things, etc. If you forget the
theories and the orations and look at how people have actually
lived and what they have done day to day you'll find that such
things have been common in American life.
Our hypocrisy has been that we've been better than our principles
have allowed. The current catastrophe is that our practice is
catching up to our principles. The obvious response is somehow to
articulate the (substantially Christian and traditional) practice
and set it up in opposition to what have been accepted as
(liberal) American principles.
That response doesn't seem utterly hopeless to me. It's based
ultimately on the notion that evil is parasitic, so if something
as comprehensive as a political society lasts a long time then
there must be something good about it, and whatever that is must
really be its essence since evil is not an essence.
Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Fri Mar 3 15:20:46 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA29944;
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:20:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:20:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003032020.PAA29944@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943823823&P=Yes&TL=943722950
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943823823&P=Yes&TL=943722950
Status: O
Re: Re: Response to Jim Kalb
Sunday, 28-Nov-1999 16:17:03
209.156.91.76 writes:
But America is not a project, it is a country. It has often been
mistaken for a project, it's true, but since the project has been
destroying the country why continue the mistake?
No political society could last 225 years without tradition and
order. The fact they have not been made explicit may have
distorted things and in the end led to disaster but that does not
mean they have not been present.
(For more on the same line of thought, see my "Traditionalism and
the American Order," which is on my web page.)
Jim Kalb
From jk@panix.com Fri Mar 3 15:21:03 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA00116;
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:21:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200003032021.PAA00116@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: jk@panix.com
Subject: mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943748714&P=Yes&TL=943722950
X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb292481&MyNum=943748714&P=Yes&TL=943722950
Status: O
Re: Americanism
Saturday, 27-Nov-1999 19:25:14
209.156.88.140 writes:
It's a puzzling issue. It's true I think that the liberal and
therefore anti-Christian elements of the American regime have
always been stated more explicitly, and in the end they are the
ones that have won, but other elements were real as well.
It's only since the 60s that the former have been viewed as the
sole legitimate polical principles in America. Remember that as
recently as the early 60s there were prayers in the public schools
and 10 years before that Supreme Court justices were still saying
in opinions that American institutions presupposed a Supreme
Being.
Not that everything was hunky-dory until 1968, or that the
principle of eliminating dogma from public life is necessarily
workable long-term. It does seem to me though that there has been
more to the American regime than Jacobinism, and that as practical
matter it's better to emphasize the aspects with which one can
agree, which will always be there since no society can exist
unless based in some ways on truth even if only implicitly. People
who claim the Founder's regime was in fact Christian and
Aristotelian may have an uphill argument in many ways but they do
I think have an argument.
Jim Kalb
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Mar 4 06:53:43 EST 2000
Article: 14384 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Raimondo on McHate
Date: 3 Mar 2000 20:15:29 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <89po3h$9sv$1@panix.com>
References: <38E40A69@MailAndNews.com> <89lrrv$4lf$1@panix.com> <20000303.2323.708snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952132531 21258 166.84.0.226 (4 Mar 2000 01:15:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 01:15:31 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14384
raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
> Am I alone here in seeing a possible mapping between the alleged
> incompleteness or inconsistency of liberalism and the incompleteness
> or inconsistency of formal systems? That is, if liberalism is a rich
> enough body of doctrine to be applicable to the real world, it must
> be either incomplete or inconsistent (as above). And so must any
> other doctrine which qualifies.
The problem as I see it is that liberalism purports to be a self-
sufficient formal doctrine that's comprehensive enough to base a
constitution on. That's the point of Rawls' _Theory of Justice_. It's
also the basis on which American court enact liberalism. They aren't
really enforcing their substantive moral views you see, they're just
working out the implications of the concept of ordered liberty or
equality or human dignity or what have you, all of which are somehow
equivalent, and who could be against that or think it's not an
appropriate judicial role.
If liberalism wanted to avoid the contradictions created by claims of
self-sufficiency and still answer questions it would have to allow for
substantive binding moral principles that transcend the human will and
in fact transcend full human comprehension. It would have to allow for
rules that can't be generated from the principles like consent and
equality that it recognizes. It can't do that without committing
suicide though. In American law we would say that doing so would
violate the First Amendement prohibition on an establishment of
religion.
> In that case the search for an Ultimate Standard would be bound to be
> a will-o-the-wisp; all one could establish was that (again as above)
> the ultimate standard could not be deduced from the social theory or
> body of doctrine under consideration.
To be reasonable I think we must believe there is a Ultimate Standard
that we can know to some degree, and also deny that we can fully
possess it. If we don't believe the former then arbitrariness
permeates all our actions, which makes us seem unreasonable. If we
don't deny the latter we get into the problems you suggest.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Mar 4 06:53:44 EST 2000
Article: 14389 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Raimondo on McHate
Date: 4 Mar 2000 06:17:26 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <89qrc6$obb$1@panix.com>
References: <38E40A69@MailAndNews.com> <89lrrv$4lf$1@panix.com> <20000303.2323.708snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <89po3h$9sv$1@panix.com> <89q67e$m7o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952168647 12801 166.84.0.226 (4 Mar 2000 11:17:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:17:27 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14389
In <89q67e$m7o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> johngpf@my-deja.com writes:
>> To be reasonable I think we must believe there is a Ultimate
>> Standard that we can know to some degree, and also deny that we can
>> fully possess it. If we don't believe the former then arbitrariness
>> permeates all our actions, which makes us seem unreasonable. If we
>> don't deny the latter we get into the problems you suggest.
>This sounds scandalously utillitarian.
I wouldn't call pointing out the requirements for a system of life
characterized by reason "utilitarian." ("The problems you suggest"
involved flat self-contradiction resulting from an attempt to be
superrational.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Mar 4 06:53:45 EST 2000
Article: 14390 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Race, Technology, and the Power Elite
Date: 4 Mar 2000 06:47:18 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <89qt46$qek$1@panix.com>
References: <38DC3617@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952170438 14243 166.84.0.226 (4 Mar 2000 11:47:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:47:18 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14390
In <38DC3617@MailAndNews.com> "Reginald P. Forsythe II" writes:
>"Ethnocide is therefore the systematic destruction of the modes of
>life and thought of people who are different from those who carry out
>this destructive enterprise."
An important feature of the current situation is that the destruction
applies to all ethnoi and the "those" who are carrying it out -- to the
extent the "those" are concrete and not simply as an aspect of all of
us, to a greater or lesser extent -- are primarily a functional class
rather than an ethnos. The Jews are being destroyed like everyone
else, judging by birth and intermarriage rates. So to my mind it is
best to understand the conflict not as one between ethnoi but as one
between humanity as such and forces that oppose it. I think it makes
sense to emphasize common interests when they obviously exist.
Furthermore it's important to recognize that the antihuman forces are
not simply a social group but an expression of something within the
human soul.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 5 04:38:44 EST 2000
Article: 14393 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Deep AI?
Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:56:48 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <89rf8g$ntt$1@panix.com>
References: <89q60k$m5k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952189009 25762 166.84.0.226 (4 Mar 2000 16:56:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 16:56:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14393
In wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>I have proposed the problem is this way to friends who are interested
>in AI, but never gotten any response: How are subjective experiences
>to arise from purely objective phenomena such as algorithms executing
>in a computer?
A similar point is made by John Searle's Chinese Room argument. You
reduce all the knowledge of a Chinaman relevant to answering questions
to a list of instructions in English, give the instructions to a
randomly chosen American sitting in a large black box (the "Chinese
Room"), and let people write questions in Chinese on slips of paper and
drop them through a slot in the door, after which the American works
out the answer by following the instructions, produces it on paper and
shoves it out the slot, not knowing of course what either the question
or the answer mean.
>They may be able to replace humans in a great deal of their functions;
>perhaps entirely if the unseen world can be neglected.
It can't be neglected. If events in the unseen world couldn't affect
the seen world we couldn't talk about them since the noises we make
when we talk about them are events in the seen world caused by events n
the unseen world.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 5 04:38:45 EST 2000
Article: 14394 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Raimondo on McHate
Date: 4 Mar 2000 12:03:00 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <89rfk4$ob4$1@panix.com>
References: <38E40A69@MailAndNews.com> <89lrrv$4lf$1@panix.com> <20000303.2323.708snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <89po3h$9sv$1@panix.com> <89q67e$m7o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89qrc6$obb$1@panix.com> <89r9n0$cfg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952189381 25829 166.84.0.226 (4 Mar 2000 17:03:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 17:03:01 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14394
In <89r9n0$cfg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> johngpf@my-deja.com writes:
>Well, I did say "sounds," not "is" utillitarian, thus the playful
>"scandalously."
What you wrote was somewhat playful and I didn't pick up on it it's
true.
>but the problem, I think, is not so much a matter of super-rationality
>as it is of self- referentiality. After all, again as a practical
>matter, by one's choice of idealogy one has already sought and found
>one's Ultimate Standard. Idealogies are not epistemological; they are
>doctrinal. As a matter of logic, assertions made from within such
>systems are equivalent to saying "because the Bible tells me so." And
>this is especially true of doctrinal assertions that it is impossible
>to appeal to any Ultimate Standard.
Superrationality is always self-referential because it aims at a closed
system. I suppose "ideology" usually refers to a closed system. A way
of thought that is not closed, that accepts its dependence on something
superior that cannot be altogether grasped, would I think usually be
called a "religion."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 5 04:38:45 EST 2000
Article: 14401 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Race, Technology, and the Power Elite
Date: 4 Mar 2000 22:21:06 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <89sjr2$p49$1@panix.com>
References: <38E75228@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952226467 4728 166.84.0.226 (5 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14401
In <38E75228@MailAndNews.com> "Reginald P. Forsythe II" writes:
>> An important feature of the current situation is that the
>> destruction applies to all ethnoi and the "those" who are carrying
>> it out -- to the extent the "those" are concrete and not simply as
>> an aspect of all of us, to a greater or lesser extent -- are
>> primarily a functional class rather than an ethnos.
>This denies the evangelical, Judaeo-Christian character of liberalism.
>It also denies that Jews participate in this as the most ardent and
>influential supporters of the cultural cancer of PC, and participate
>in it out of all proportion to their numbers in the general
>population, especially in leadership roles.
I don't see much in the current situation and the events leading up to
it that's not in bks. viii and ix of Plato's Republic. Liberalism
seems to me a quite logical system (ignoring problems of ultimate
incoherence) once you abolish transcendence and consequently identify
the good with the desired and try to base authority on consent. The
extent to which it can be tied to any specific religious or cultural
background is an interesting question. My inclination is to think it
probably has something to do with the Western inclination toward
comprehensive systematic thought more than anything else.
I don't think I said anything to deny the Jewish contribution to
liberalism, multiculturalism, what have you. All I would say is that
the contribution is not essential, it doesn't really explain the
situation, and since the Jews are an ethnos like everyone else their
tendency to support those things is not really in their interests,
certainly not after a certain point which has already been passed.
>Moreover, their religion, their history, their culture, their
>political institutions, all of them, support and enhance their efforts
>to remain and prosper as a distinct group, a collectivity.
No doubt, but they're not supermen. Jewish religion isn't in such
great shape, their culture's in radical decline like everyone else's,
they don't reproduce and they've begun to intermarry a lot. You can't
be in the forefront of modernity and not have it rub off.
>To think that race makes no difference, and that a non-White America
>even COULD resemble a White America in its governmental form, is to
>think nonsense.
Not a claim I would make, only that the fundamental problem is not a
struggle among races but a struggle between all ethnic peoples, all
religions, all cultures, all recognizable humanity on one side and on
the other a conglomeration of principles, practices and powers that
would destroy or radically degrade all of them. That being the case,
it's all one struggle. The cause of right-wing extremism, which
includes recognition of the legitimacy of ethnic loyalties, is the
cause of humanity. If that's really so, why not take advantage of it?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 5 18:36:56 EST 2000
Article: 14412 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Raimondo on McHate
Date: 5 Mar 2000 16:33:24 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <89ujr4$l47$1@panix.com>
References: <38E40A69@MailAndNews.com> <89lrrv$4lf$1@panix.com> <20000303.2323.708snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <89po3h$9sv$1@panix.com> <89q67e$m7o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89qrc6$obb$1@panix.com> <89r9n0$cfg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89rfk4$ob4$1@panix.com> <89ubfg$bt2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952292005 20279 166.84.0.226 (5 Mar 2000 21:33:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2000 21:33:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14412
In <89ubfg$bt2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> John writes:
>OTOH, as I'm sure you'll agree, religion is not imune to the
>closedness one observes as characteristic of ideology.
Sure. Adequate openness is religious although not conversely unless
you want to redefine "religious" more than I think usage permits.
>Among the progenitors of Enlightenment rationalism (I believe you
>would use the term "super-rationality") was Calvin; and his
>"Institutes" is considered by Voegelin to be the first deliberately
>created "koran," a term he devised for those products of rationalism
>which are intended to relieve the faithful of the necessity of thought
>by providing, through the objectification of inspiration, a guide to
>right action which supercedes and renders obsolete all of tradition
>which is not encompassed in the writings of the prophet.
I don't know enough about Calvin to comment on that side of it. It's
worth noting though that in Islam, with its actual Koran, there's
always been a very strong tradition of mysticism that orthodoxy has
been able to avoid rejecting only by resolutely refusing to take
seriously anything the mystics say.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 5 18:36:57 EST 2000
Article: 14413 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Race, Technology, and the Power Elite
Date: 5 Mar 2000 16:37:21 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <89uk2h$ljg$1@panix.com>
References: <38E76B35@MailAndNews.com> <20000305.1935.750snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952292242 20346 166.84.0.226 (5 Mar 2000 21:37:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2000 21:37:22 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14413
In <20000305.1935.750snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>I never thought I'd live to see Jim Kalb denounced as a leftie on this
>newsgroup.
Why not? I don't think I've ever said anything that goes beyond
middle-of-the-road, seek-the-vital-center, bit-of-this-and-bit-of-that
common sense. Some may call that right-wing, others left-wing. I say
they're all unbalanced.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Thu Mar 2 08:16:36 2000
Subject: Re: Scorpion
To: la
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:16:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 640
Status: RO
The problem I have with q.-t. is that it's not really english.
"Totalitarianism" is too long, abstract and invented anyway, and when
you add "quasi" to it it becomes unmanageable.
I think the system we have now really *is* totalitarianism -- an
attempt to rule the totality of human life by an utterly self-contained
system defined and enforced by those in power -- but it's enforced by
soft means. There's nothing quasi about its essence, it's just that
the means are soft. So to me "soft totalitarianism" seems right.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Mon Mar 6 19:43:50 2000
Subject: Re: article
To: la
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:43:50 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 704
Status: RO
> >Good point about McCain's POW past etc. being a way of neutralizing
> >the reaction against Clintonism. It's interesting that "tolerance"
> >-- restricting what people and ideas will be allowed into political
> >discussion -- trumps all other issues.
>
> That point is to be meditated on--it may be a key to seeing how the
> whole, seemingly contradictory, system fits together.
I suppose the point is that blood is thicker than water, which really
means that what defines the community, what distinguishes friend and
foe, insiders and outsiders, precedes all other considerations.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Mon Mar 6 20:08:33 2000
Subject: Re: article
To: la
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:08:33 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 664
Status: RO
> for the left, the allegiance to "tolerance" is their life blood, so
> to speak, it is what makes them what they are and joins them together
> in a oneness and differentiates them from all outgroups? And
> therefore transcends all other considerations.
I think so. "Tolerance" rejects as evil all other principles of
identity and thereby (1) makes its adherents reject all other
allegiances, and (2) sets apart adherents as a uniquely good ingroup,
the only *real* ingroup, the only group whose principle of identity is
not intrinsically evil.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Tue Mar 7 07:04:47 2000
Subject: Re: article
To: la
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:04:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1592
Status: RO
> And the emerging global community is precisely this new tribe, the
> first and only tribe in human history which is not intrinsically
> evil, which is only for those who are tolerant, and which will not
> allow any other tribe, ultimately, to exist.
Since the new tribe is constructed on a simple logical principle or
something close to it it ought to be possible to infer what it will be
like. For example it defines itself by rejecting something men
naturally do, identifying themselves by reference to historical, family
and similar ties and by shared concrete substantive goods. Its own
theories about prejudice and bigotry, that they are a matter of
constructing and justifying the self by rejecting and demonizing the
other, will therefore apply perfectly to its own practice. It will
need its enemies because without them it is nothing. Therefore the
heresy hunting, the constantly shrinking circle of the elect, the lies,
distortions and ransacking of history to find things that make
everything outside the circle look like unrelieved horror.
A reasonable presumption is that everything the tolerant say about
their enemies is true pre-eminently of the tolerant. To move on to
what is for me shakier ground -- in the case of individuals such
conduct is said to be a consequence of narcissism. Liberalism looks to
me like the narcissism of the human race. It should therefore lead to
conduct analogous on the social level to that of individual
narcissists.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From owner-newman@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Wed Mar 8 19:46:45 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F1430F1B
for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:46:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.vt.edu (listserv.vt.edu [198.82.162.215])
by listserv.vt.edu (8.10.0.Gamma0/8.10.0.Gamma0) with ESMTP id e290jPf17656;
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:45:25 -0500
Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 13856220 for NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Wed, 8 Mar
2000 19:45:22 -0500
Received: from panix.com (IDENT:RxfkQm2OnPE/RFqMHrsw1hLJwwIC4kHN@panix.com
[166.84.0.226]) by listserv.vt.edu (8.10.0.Gamma0/8.10.0.Gamma0) with
ESMTP id e290jKf27324 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000
19:45:20 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id TAA00841
for NEWMAN@listserv.vt.edu; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:45:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <200003090045.TAA00841@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:45:14 -0500
Reply-To: newman Discussion List
Sender: newman Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: Essay on liberalism and transcendence
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <007801bf8939$74b01060$0403a8c0@master> from "Seth Williamson" at
Mar 8, 0 03:03:59 pm
Status: RO
Seth Williamson writes:
> What is it that motivates the ruling elite? Ideas? Protection of
> personal power and comfort and wealth? I suspect the latter plays a
> larger role than usually conceded. The typical member of the ruling
> elite would vigorously protest that he belongs to an elite, needless
> to say.
Good question. I think a lot of it is self-justification writ large.
An advantage of liberalism is that it denies that there are standards
applicable to one's inmost self, to the devices and desires of our
hearts. Liberalism is then in part the attempt to imagine and create a
world in which that is just as it should be, in which that denial is in
fact the most fundamental of standards.
No doubt a lot of it is also position, power, etc. Later on I argue
that in a liberal society such things become the only goods that can be
publicly recognized and therefore become necessary for what remains of
personal identity.
> Also needless to say, he's never thought carefully about any of this
> stuff. Typically he would deny that he's a functional nihilist too.
> Does the fact that liberalism positively discourages discussion of
> fundamental moral ideas mean that liberals are unequipped to
> understand the concepts that go with such discussions?
That's the claim of the essay, that liberalism exists by making
discussion of its fundamental principles impossible.
> How to explain the many conservatives who are Roman Catholic or
> Orthodox and who by no means reject the authority of religion?
The essay discusses "simple" conservatism which I identify as skeptical
conservatism. The course of events suggests to me that simple
conservatism has been effectively the dominant constituent of actual
conservatism. One could go from simple conservatism to a view that
reveres tradition as a means of knowing the transcendent. I think such
a transition requires faith in a definite revelation that tradition
interprets and fills out. For simple conservatism as I've defined it
that faith is not a living reality.
> It strikes me that this situation can exist only so long as people
> are willing to put up with it. They either agree with it, or they
> put up with it as nonsense they can live with. It would seem that
> the relevant fact is that most ordinary people agree with the elite
> on these matters.
It's hard to know what to make of the situation. What passes for
public discussion seems to take place mostly on TV now. TV etc. has a
pervasive effect on the popular mind, and those who run it are
determined to show fundamental opposition to the liberal order in a bad
light. What ordinary people would tend to think in the absence of the
continual course of re-education to which they are subjected is hard to
assess. Of course, the people are also continually re-educated by
other aspects of the current situation as well. To live in a society
is to be trained in its fundamental presuppositions.
It's hard to know just what to attribute to a corrupt elite and what to
a corrupt people when after all both developed in the same situation.
> What kind of a downfall do you visualize? Apocalypse? Death with a
> quiet squeak like communism?
Dunno. The essay mostly sets up a logical schema of necessary
disfunction and argues that prudence and moderation are impossible, so
something's gotta give. I suppose I expect a wimper rather than a
bang. Maybe the liberal order will slide into the sort of thing that
has existed in the lands between Europe and China, in which there's a
ruling clique whose rule is based on its own cohesion and on force, and
which doesn't do much apart from suppress gross public disorder and
collect whatever taxes it can. That's my neoLevantine theory of the
future. In that situation social order and its religious basis would
be mostly a characteristic of inward-turning groups constituting
society rather than society as a whole.
Incidentally, I've got to add more argument for the relevance of a
simple definition of "liberalism" and its logical implications to
actual events. It seems to me modernity tends to reduce things to an
homogeneous aggregate and under such conditions particular
circumstances become less important and abstract principles more so.
> Clinton points to the decrease in crime as a victory of liberalism.
> It's been suggested that a high percentage of future criminals were
> simply aborted by the urban lower classes. Just wondering if this is
> the calm before the storm.
I suppose it could also have to do with the huge prison population or
better technology of control. The issue deserves more thought than
I've given it.
> > Some claim that liberalism grants freedom unless the action
> > interferes with others in a concrete and particularized way. Hence,
> > it is said, the right of sexual expression overrides the right to
> > an environment in which traditional moral standards prevail. The
> > response is inadequate...
> I wish you'd devoted a few more sentences to explaining /why/ it's
> inadequate.
My argument was that liberalism does not in fact do so, that it
recognizes that the law may rightly support a beneficial system of
conduct even though particular violations do not cause demonstrable
harm. It also protects against aesthetic wrongs, so why not against
moral offense which after all tends to destroy socially beneficial
sensibilities and so leads to dysfunction.
> Of course, it's difficult to hold yourself very apart from the
> current regime. That guy who bombed the disco and the abortion mill
> is Georgia has apparently managed it for a year or two in the deep
> Appalachian woods. Does voting make much difference in the regime as
> it exists?
I escape all these questions by being theoretical. I should say though
that I'm trying to put together a "well yes but what should one do
concretely" essay. Basically I see a great future in being a social
dropout. Are you raising kids right by giving them a TV and sending
them to public school? I favor voting though because you really can't
tell what will have an effect and it's as well to maintain social ties
as much as possible consistent with integrity.
Thanks very much for the comments, by the way.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Thu Mar 9 09:21:35 2000
Subject: Re: heroin trials
To: sar
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:21:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1653
Status: RO
> Currently I am trying to write a paper on the Conservative ideology
> regarding heroin trials. At this stage I have a limited understanding
> of conservatism. I'm not sure if I'm on the right track. I think
> conservatives would be against heroin trials, prefering
> rehabilitation which would teach skills conducive to living in
> society and doing ones 'duty'. Economically for the same reasons. As
> you can probably guess I'm struggling with this paper. Any ideas?
By "heroin trials" I suppose you mean sending people to jail for drug
offenses.
Rehabilitation and training programs wouldn't be characteristic
conservative responses. Conservatives generally don't approve of
direct comprehensive government intervention in people's lives. They
view social life as mostly a combination of individual choice and
informal moral institutions and traditions (e.g., the family,
expectations of honesty and responsibility). If those things aren't
working government won't be able to take up the slack by administering
people's lives directly. Attempting to do so will only further disrupt
individual responsibility and moral traditions.
I suppose there are two positions that might qualify as conservative:
1. Yes, send them to jail. Heroin use is immoral, it's destructive,
it's illegal, and government can help support that understanding by
punishing those who violate it or at least those who do so grossly for
example by dealing.
2. Decriminalize heroin and let those who want to destroy their lives
take the consequences.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jimkalb@altavista.com Fri Mar 10 05:31:59 2000
Return-Path:
Received: (cpmta 12595 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 02:31:27 -0800
Date: 10 Mar 2000 02:31:27 -0800
Message-ID: <20000310103127.12594.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 10 Mar 2000 10:31:27 GMT
Received: from [209.246.92.124] by mail.altavista.com with HTTP;
10 Mar 2000 02:31:26 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.5.1.4
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Upstream] Rape Motivation
Status: RO
On Wed, 08 March 2000, "Gabennesch, Howard R" wrote:
> "We can think of no other assertion in the social sciences that has
> achieved such wide acceptance on the basis of so little evidence."
> Thus did J. Tedeschi and R. Felson describe the
> rape-is-not-about-sex! theory in their VIOLENCE, AGGRESSION, AND
> COERCIVE ACTIONS (1994).
This is an amazingly emotional issue for some people. I have never
been the target of such hysterical abuse as I was several years ago
when I commented in a usenet forum that rape must have *something* to
do with sex, because after all a man couldn't go out intending to do
the deed without expecting that he would find it sexually exciting. I
kept asking questions trying to find out just what it was that was so
upsetting but failed. I still don't have a theory, except the general
one that people act oddly in connection with sex, especially people who
have a thing about gender issues.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 12 09:23:15 EST 2000
Article: 14456 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Irving
Date: 11 Mar 2000 11:33:14 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <8adsga$1am$1@panix.com>
References: <38CA2B65@MailAndNews.com> <38c778b0$0$19357@news.voyager.net> <38C8005C.5B983292@zap.a2000.nl> <38c8a550$0$1393@news.voyager.net> <38C8EFE6.17E18D2D@zap.a2000.nl> <38c9f3cd$0$87706@news.voyager.net> <38CA6AB1.67717EE3@zap.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 952792395 2801 166.84.0.226 (11 Mar 2000 16:33:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Mar 2000 16:33:15 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14456
In <38CA6AB1.67717EE3@zap.a2000.nl> vtnet writes:
>I don't know much about Irving's work as I didn't came around to
>reading any of it first hand, and neither do I understand much about
>his motives for bringing a suit. But I agree that such methods seem
>highly inappropriate for those defending freedom of expression
I have never read him but this seems to be a case in which the "speech
that silences" theory actually applies. His status as a "Holocaust
denier" means that there are several countries he is not allowed to
enter even for purposes of historical research, archives he is not
allowed access to, etc. It meant that his book on Goebbels got
depublished. So depending on facts -- just what Lipstadt said, just
what Irving has done -- a libel suit could well be appropriate. I
should say I haven't been following the trial though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Sun Mar 12 21:32:58 2000
Subject: Re: Liberalism and Transcendence
To: cj
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:32:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2397
Status: RO
> Molnar thinks that both the State and the Church suffer at the hands
> of civil society.
I'm really not sure. I suppose what he has in mind is that the State
as bearer of transcendent authority has disappeared so what's called
the State and in fact is recognized as the highest social authority has
been captured by this-worldly considerations of material self-interest
and individually-chosen goals of the sort that dominates what he calls
civil society. As an American I can't help but give more credence than
Molnar does to non-State institutions as bearers of something
transcendent.
> My thought is that we shall see another political religion, although
> we now see the Somatic, Aldous Huxley version here.
Again, I don't know. In my piece on Ibn Khaldun I suggest that we're
likely to see a long period of drift and turning inward.
> I saw an article somewhere on the web..."The Quest for the Catholic
> State"...I printed it...may be able to find it, revisit the URL, and
> see if it is worth mailing around, to build on your offering.
I'd be interested in anything you think relevant.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Sun Mar 12 22:08:00 2000
Subject: Re: the established religion
To: cj
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:08:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1970
Status: RO
> But, thinking about how you end up your essay, I'm wondering its
> purpose.
I suppose the purpose is to demonstrate how the internal logic of
liberalism creates conceptual and practical problems that destroy it.
Also to set liberalism with the general human situation, which creates
a conceptual and practical need for religion. I agree the analysis has
to go farther.
I'm also working on a piece that discusses how someone who recognizes
man's need for the transcendent should live now in view of the fact
that the transcendent is only available to us through concrete
traditions, and another analyzing freedom and dignity and showing how
what is valid in those conceptions is most available in Christendom.
Really, the analysis in all these pieces assumes no special commitments
beyond natural reason. I suppose the reason is that I do not now feel
able to speak publicly with authority on anything beyond that.
> Isn't it that which is the endpoint and the purpose of your essay?
That's certainly the way it seems. If you read Newman though he
distinguishes notional belief and real apprehension. Apologetics,
evangelism, prophecy, etc. have to be written from the standpoint of
real apprehension. My attitude toward the things you mention has too
strong a notional component. The things I write are basically reports
on issues I've been working my way through and they're the outcome of
hammering away at them from a thousand directions. You can't rush what
you say just because you think you see where it's ending up.
I don't object to being pushed, of course, it helps focus the mind and
shake off laziness.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Wed Mar 15 12:04:52 2000
Subject: Re: Are We All Historians of Decline?
To: la
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:04:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1129
Status: RO
> Conservatives believe in transcendent truth and see the state, along
> with other human institutions such as the family, as embodying or
> reflecting higher truth and thus as indispensable to civilized human
> existence.
This is the problem with the secular state. The state necessarily
embodies higher truth because it can't exist without claiming the right
to demand sacrifice of life. So if you have a secular state then some
secular goal becomes the state religion. What libertarians have in
common with conservatives is that they too see that the secular state
is impossible.
I think another possible definition of totalitarianism is that it is
the attempt to make some this-worldly principle do duty for religion.
You try to make race or class or economic equality or whatever perform
the function of a transcendental principle ordering the whole of life.
So on this like of thought the secular state naturally tends toward
totalitarianism. I suppose utter corruption is another possible
outcome.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Thu Mar 16 07:24:00 2000
Subject: Re: Are We All Historians of Decline?
To: la
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:24:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 988
Status: RO
> My favorite example is Norman Mailer's rightfully decrying the
> "totalitarian" and sterile architecture of fifties and sixties
> America, and urging as the cure for this, not a restoration of our
> lost culture, but orgy and murder.
A good example. This does seem to be the heart of the counterculture.
It's a search for the transcendent after the transcendent has been
abolished. Orgy and murder are a substitute transcendent because they
destroy the false absolutism -- the "totalitarianism" -- of bourgeois
propriety.
Would it help to consider actual stateless societies? The two that
come to mind are Israel under the judges and Iceland for the first 250
years after conversion to Christianity. Dispensing with the state does
seem to be a possibility for fairly civilized societies, if only just
barely and under special circumstances.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Mar 19 20:47:01 EST 2000
Article: 14491 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Repeal the Second Amendment!
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:19:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <8b2k5f$bi4$1@panix.com>
References: <8b0ss1$d37$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 953471983 1003 166.84.0.226 (19 Mar 2000 13:19:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Mar 2000 13:19:43 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14491
In <8b0ss1$d37$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Napoleon Bonaparte writes:
>I think the support of the Second Amendment by so-called
>"conservatives" has been a mistake; what this country needs is
>elitism, not populism. Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a
>right.
Elitism, hierarchy, etc. are necessary and splendid things, but not in
excess. A balance of forces is needed for well-being. If the elite
requires the populace to be absolutely disarmed in order to feel secure
they've altogether lost their loyalty. What good is an elite to which
no one feels loyal?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Fri Mar 17 17:08:26 2000
Subject: Re: Liberalism-Transcendent-Restoration
To: Re
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:08:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 7543
Status: RO
> The idea of mind over matter goes back at least to ancient Rome.
> Manilius wrote: "No barriers, no masses of matter, however enormous,
> can withstand the powers of the mind; the remotest corners yield to
> them; all things succumb, the very heaven itself is laid open." The
> idea is renewed constantly by top minds, from Thomas Aquinas to Pico
> della Mirandola on to Emerson. The logical progression of this very
> human thought is to develop science and technology to the point where
> we can, not deny human nature, but transcend it, to rise to something
> higher.
But "mind over matter" and "there is no human nature" are different.
For the latter you need form as well as matter to be subject to the
human mind. That is in fact what moderns including liberals tend to
believe. They reject essentialism, especially as applied to human
beings. It isn't a matter of rising to something higher, since the
notion of "higher," to the extent it means something other than "what I
want more," implies that the good is not dependent on the human mind.
> Equality, the word itself, is believed to be sufficient to ward off
> all attacks from potential usurpers of the liberal political order.
Good point and I should cover it. The real consequence of insistence
on human equality I think is that you must treat your enemies as not
really human. That's why any conduct whatever is permissible in
dealing with Nazis like Pat Buchanan or Joerg Haider.
> our obvious ability to design our own evolution
To me it's not altogether obvious, at least if "evolution" is taken to
include speciation as well as getting rid of hereditary diseases or
increasing average health, longevity, intelligence etc. within limits.
The latter of course has in fact been possible for thousands of years
by way of selective breeding. So far as I can tell speciation still
seems to be a bit of a mystery.
> Fixing human nature as human nature forever, denies volitional
> freedom, paradoxically making us less than human.
You mean we're not free to keep it fixed? Sounds like a denial of
volitional freedom to me.
Absolute freedom is intrinsically paradoxical and even contradictory.
You seem here to identify it with human nature, which I think is a
mistake. You can't identify human nature with something that makes no
sense.
> It would be easy to show that organized religion has historically
> been, and continues to be, largely a reign of force and fraud,
> because humans are involved.
Social life always involves force and fraud. It still seems to me a
mistake to try to organize it in accordance with a principle like
liberalism that intrinsically has nothing to rely on other than force,
fraud, and confusion. It should be possible for an intelligent and
honorable man to be loyal to the social order because he sees it as
right in principle in spite of corruptions.
> My thrust will be that the accelerating pace of technological change
> precludes orderly transitions to "restoration of religion" because
> populations cannot regenerate themselves without a retreat from such
> a world, which is highly difficult to do and could prove fatally
> myopic.
It seems to me the small-scale social stability needed for restoration
of religion and for that matter long-term tolerable social existence
*will* require restrictions on use of technology. What is necessary
will happen, somehow or other, and it makes no sense to say it's myopic.
If it can't be brought about intentionally it will happen
unintentionally, through the collapse of technology as a human
institution.
> Without rational proof of the existence of the transcendent realm
> that brings coherence to the universe, it will last for generations
> under a scenario of either national corruption/syndicalism or world
> government.
I'm not sure rational proof is needed. Suppose we can't think
coherently about life without assuming such a realm? I think that's
so, and since something of the sort is also the closest we have to a
rational proof of induction or the existence of minds other than our
own I don't see the problem in relying on it for belief in a
transcendent realm. I wouldn't call it "proof," though.
As you suggest, corruption can last a long time. On the other hand, as
you also suggest technological progress speeds things up.
> The current political order cannot be rejected rationally unless the
> transcendent can be seen under the scientifically pronounced aegis of
> rationality. The only order that can replace it, is a modern version
> of the old hierarchical order, both on earth and in heaven. The
> notion of "all men are created equal" would be modified to "all
> individual beings within a given species are created equal before God
> (the transcendent realm) at the moment of their conception."
I don't see why this is so. The natural sciences deal with some things
but not all things. They do not for example deal with mathematics.
Nor do they deal with their own foundations. Why shouldn't there be
other things, like ethics and metaphysics, that they don't deal with,
and that tell us that things of the same natural-scientific kind are
nonetheless of different rank in other respects?
> On the other hand, Jim's prescription is a declaration of war against
> world government because there will be no separate place under this
> universal regime. Liberty never fares well under conditions of war.
I thought the tree of liberty was watered with the blood of patriots.
However that may be, world government will be thoroughly corrupt and
inefficient, it won't be able to govern and eventually will mostly give
up trying, so I don't expect the ultimate relation between it and
various groups of dropouts to be essentially one of war, any more than
the relation between the Holy Roman Emperor and the imperial nobility
was essentially one of war.
> Failing either of these two remedies, "they shall turn their cities
> into forests and the forests into dens and lairs of men.... through
> long centuries of barbarism, rust will consume the misbegotten
> subtleties of malicious wits that have turned them into beasts made
> more inhuman by the barbarism of reflection" until finally the
> survivors "are again religious, truthful, and faithful."
This seems the most likely outcome to me.
> the liberal political order will be broken by elites fulfilling their
> desire for immense money and power, and biologically and
> technologically engineering themselves or their progeny to a point
> where they can collectively defend themselves from the less equal
> remainder of humanity.
How will the elites govern themselves. They must do that in order to
govern others. What principles will give them enduring mutual loyalty
and readiness to sacrifice?
> It seems to me far more likely that a robotic existence would not be
> like a human one in any sense that we understand, that the robots
> would in no sense be our children, that on this path our humanity may
> well be lost."
I quite agree. AI seems to me a fundamental question. If it is
possible I expect the abolition of humanity. If it is not (and I am
inclined to believe it is not) then we can't get by without tradition
and the transcendent; as a result technological society won't last,
it'll most likely eventually collapse and we'll go back to the
beginning of one of Vico's cycles.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Sun Mar 19 21:48:23 2000
Subject: Re: Liberalism-Transcendent-Restoration II
To: Re
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:48:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4088
Status: RO
> Each individual being is unique, unreplicable, irreplacable and each
> nature is likewise unique - standing alone. To speak of "human
> nature" is speak of our social nature, our ability to communicate
> with one another and reproduce. This social nature developed from a
> fixed, finite point in space and time and will end at some future,
> finite point in space and time.
I don't see that our social nature is the whole of our nature as a
species. For example each of us I suppose has the capacity for
aesthetic experience. That capacity is not wholly social. Since we
all have it it is part of our human nature. I would put moral
experience and our relation to truth -- all men by nature desire to
know -- in the same category. The good, beautiful and true are not
wholly social but it is part of human nature to be drawn to them.
> In my own personal experience, "human nature" today has changed quite
> substantially within my lifetime, both from social aspects and
> technological aspects.
Not sure what you have in mind.
> Volitional freedom is the classic philosophical/theological idea of
> "free will." I do identify it with "human nature." We are free to
> destroy ourselves. We are free to design our successors.
It's not obvious to me we are free to design our successors except in
the sense that we are free to destroy ourselves, in which case our
successors would be the fish or some such. I suppose we could design
our successors in the sense of providing for future men to be creatures
of the same kind as us but better in some definable way -- less subject
to heart disease or whatever. Of course we've always been able to do
that if only through proper childraising.
I don't see what sense it makes to speak of a lower kind designing a
higher kind. The lower kind quite literally would not know what it was
doing. If it knew what it was doing it would be of at least the rank
of what it was designing. And it's not clear the design of an
enormously complex system like a form of life can be successfully
technologized. For example, it might turn out that the system couldn't
be modelled by anything less than the system itself. If so then it
couldn't be designed.
> But you can't have small-scale culture in a world state with its
> supercomputers and spy satellites and neighborhood thought police.
You could have a thoroughly corrupt and inefficient world state, more
likely several states composing a thoroughly corrupt and inefficient
civilization in the manner of the Hellenistic world, and a variety of
groups like the Orthodox Jews, Gypsies, mafia families, Moonies, etc.,
all of them developing various means of shutting the others out.
Why suppose the world state will not be t. c. and i.? Also, think
Darwinistically -- note the enormous survival advantage of cultural
coherence in a world of mindless drugged-out wimps. Why wouldn't the
Amish and Hasidim take over?
> Self-interest will forge the principles they need to collectively
> survive against the other 6.9 billion. They will be aristocratic
> principles amongst each oth er and less humane principles towards
> those left behind.
Self-interest is only a principle of unity until you've collected the
loot and start dividing it up. Read Ibn Khaldun on the fate of ruling
classes. They aren't equal among themselves. Those at the top cut the
others out of the action and eventually become self-indulgent and self-
destructive. Are Bill Clintons going to found an empire that will last
1000 years?
> The difficulty is that of incommensurable authorities co-existing.
> One cannot serve two masters: God and Mammon (or the transcendent
> realm and money/power). Every arrangement falls apart.
All human things are subject to decay, it's true. Nonetheless
arrangements that accommodate all aspects of human nature, the
transcendent as well as the worldly, seem likely to work better and
last longer.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Tue Mar 21 10:49:08 2000
Subject: Re: Liberalism-Transcendent-Restoration II
To: Re
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:49:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3851
Status: RO
> To the extent that we are a species and not an individual, we are
> purely social. Else what could species possibly mean?
"Species" I suppose refers to the qualities that constitute our human
nature. Some are social, some are not. For example, having subjective
experience is not a social quality but it is a quality essential to
human nature.
> The aesthetic experience is wholly social, how could it be otherwise?
> We learn what is beautiful and what is ugly from others, then form
> our own judgments; art is always for someone else who has the
> capacity to appreciate it or else it is not art.
If this were so aesthetic judgments would be wholly conventional, which
they are not. It is not clear why your line of thought if valid for
art would not also be valid for the natural sciences. We learn
chemistry from others, but chemistry is not wholly social. Scientific
theories are always for someone else who has the capacity to test them
or else they are not science; that does not mean that their truth is a
purely social matter.
> It is not human nature to be drawn to the G-B-T any more than it is
> human nature to be drawn away from them.
Not sure why you would say this. Is it any more the nature of an eye
to see than to be blind? It seems to me it is. The nature of a thing
I think has to do with its best functioning given the systematic
relations of the thing's capacities, among themselves and to the rest
of the world.
> Such is the nature of free will.
Your view seems to be that man is defined by arbitrary free will. If
he restricts his will, for example by restricting the advance of
technology, you seem to believe that he is denying his nature. Why is
that view better than the view that man is defined (among other things)
by rational free will, where "rational" includes the ability to choose
the goals most fitting for man? On the latter view man would best
fulfill his nature by choosing the best things.
> Human nature, being social in essence, changes as our social aspect
> changes.
Do human beings who are socially opposed, say proletarians and
capitalists, Aryans and Jews, left/liberals and Serbs, share a common
human nature?
> The design process is not static, it is dynamic, honing in on a
> moving target, with error correction along the way. It is an
> alternating cycle of effectiveness and efficiency, changing the
> target and improving the aim.
Fine, but that still requires a general comprehension of what it is
you're designing and an ability to know what it would be like if it
existed, model it, create prototypes, etc. I don't see how that would
apply in the case of design by man of something higher. It would be
like an attempt to design a radical conceptual breakthrough. That
can't be done.
> Technological design proceeds in increments from varied fields,
> sometimes combinations of individual designs produce a technology
> with emergent properties no one predicted, like the internet.
No doubt things come up that no one could have guessed. The future is
famously unforeseeable. You however are predicting the intentional
creation of something rather specific, the Superman.
> Look at Russia's success at clamping down on dissidents for most of
> its seventy years! It all depends on the will of the rulers, the
> techniques are there to really insure conformity of expressed opinion
> and behavior.
Incompetence and corruption mean the rulers become incapable of forming
and carrying out any very comprehensive collective will. The more they
stamp out thought the more they become incapable of it themselves. I'm
not minimizing how bad things can get, only denying that
totalitarianism lasts.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Mar 22 15:27:55 EST 2000
Article: 14504 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Linguistic Revolution
Date: 22 Mar 2000 12:36:27 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <8bb0ar$jq9$1@panix.com>
References: <38DF1EFB@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 953746590 17434 166.84.0.226 (22 Mar 2000 17:36:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Mar 2000 17:36:30 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14504
Another good quote is:
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of
propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce
a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of
unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."
Leonard Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd ed.
(London, 1970), 477.
There's also de Maistre's comment that deterioration in thought is
marked by an immediate and proportionate deterioration in language.
For the rest, it seems that straight speaking, the mean between
euphemism and abuse, is normally the best bet.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Wed Mar 22 16:42:20 2000
Subject: More about sex
To: tmcwhorter@earthlink.net (Tom McWhorter)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:42:20 -0500 (EST)
Cc: GunnardJ@carp.vno.osf.lt, class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
In-Reply-To: <38D923E2.B2DCC56@earthlink.net> from "Tom McWhorter" at Mar 22, 0 02:49:55 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3067
Status: RO
Tom McWhorter writes:
> Why should I worry about other people's sexual inclinations,
> homosexual or otherwise?
Because:
1. You are a man, man is a social animal, and sex is one of the
fundamental things affecting human society.
2. Man is a rational animal, meaning among other things that what he
does is profoundly affected by his conception of what he is, of what
others are, of what conduct and relationships are right and make sense.
3. Man is born unformed and helpless, and culture and upbringing are
crucial to making him what he is. He becomes fully human far more
easily if he grows up in some settings than in others.
The result is that accepted conceptions of what a man and woman are,
what sex and its significance are, what men and women owe and can
expect from each other, are important. Among other things, they
profoundly affect family life, and family life is basic to how we come
to be and to the rest of our life in society.
Accepted conceptions and standards relating to sex and gender have been
fundamental to all societies up to now. Maybe that's all been a big
mistake that we're now rectifying because we're smarter, and the new
order of things in which people define all these things for themselves
is working just great, but I don't think so.
To me it seems clear that stable families -- meaning the man-woman-
children family that we've known about all these years -- are essential
to a tolerably civil and orderly way of life. That's especially true
in a society that tends toward individualism, in which extended
families can't pick up the slack and the welfare bureaucracy is the
substitute for the "village" HRC says is needed to raise children.
For stability you can't rely on the common goals couples have
individually because goals change over the long period during which
families have to be stable. Nor can you rely simply on people keeping
promises because contracts are made to be broken and if they're
open-ended, comprehensive and last forever most people will break them.
What makes the family possible as a functional and reliable social
institution, it seems to me, has always and everywhere been a complex
of accepted understandings of sex and gender and their significance in
human life. Sex has never been what you make of it, it's been
something with a specific meaning and function that carries with it
particular duties and so is acceptable only in particular settings.
"Man" and "woman" have always implied differing substantive ideals that
have included standards for sexual conduct. The tendency today of
course is very strongly against such notions. I think the tendency is
wrong and will cause -- has already caused -- endless suffering.
That being so, it seems to me that a public sexual morality -- in your
terms "worry[ing] about other people's sexual inclinations" -- and
other public standards relating to sex and gender are a good idea.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU Wed Mar 22 21:57:22 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF0730F23
for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:57:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mj@localhost)
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) id VAA08052
for class-69-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04151
for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:26 -0500 (EST)
From: jk@panix.com
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [166.84.0.226])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 6FFCB1561B; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PanixN2.0) id VAA05374;
Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003230255.VAA05374@panix.com>
Subject: Re: And still more Sex
To: teda@eos.com (Ted Adams)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:42 -0500 (EST)
Cc: class-69@Dartmouth.EDU, GunnardJ@carp.vno.osf.lt,
tmcwhorter@earthlink.net
In-Reply-To: <38D95134.E5FCD063@eos.com> from "Ted Adams" at Mar 22, 0 03:03:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Ted Adams writes:
> > For stability you can't rely on the common goals couples have
> > individually because goals change over the long period during which
> > families have to be stable. Nor can you rely simply on people
> > keeping promises because contracts are made to be broken and if
> > they're open-ended, comprehensive and last forever most people will
> > break them.
>
> If I read this properly, Jim is saying you can't trust people
> individually to make moral decisions that are appropriate because
> "contracts are made to be broken". I guess we are supposed to
> somehow trust government to make wiser decisions that we misguided
> individuals would make.
Not at all what I'm saying. I didn't mention the government and didn't
have the government in mind.
The conclusion of what I wrote was that public moral standards relating
to sexual matters are a good thing. Consider the case of honesty or
common courtesy. There are public standards regarding such things --
accepted understandings as to what is good or bad, acceptable or
unacceptable. It is not thought to be simply a matter of individual
taste whether you lie or are grossly rude.
Nonetheless, it is not primarily the government that sets up the
standards and enforces them. At times the government may get involved,
say by punishing perjury or encouraging its own employees to be
courteous to the public. Nonetheless, the standards are not primarily
a matter of law. In fact, the fewer laws there are the more important
such informal standards become and the weaker the informal standards
the more laws are needed (and the less effectual the laws will be).
My point is that sex is fundamental to human society, so standards
regarding sexual conduct should no more be thought a matter of taste
than standards regarding honesty or courtesy.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
To unsubscribe send email to majordomo@dartmouth.edu
with unsubscribe class-69 as the body of the message.
From owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU Thu Mar 23 11:53:30 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993CD30FC2
for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:53:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mj@localhost)
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) id LAA10083
for class-69-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:47:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12883
for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:47:21 -0500 (EST)
From: jk@panix.com
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [166.84.0.226])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id C7C2130F69; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PanixN2.0) id LAA29193;
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003231647.LAA29193@panix.com>
Subject: Re: nature of/and sex [whatever "of/and" means]
To: GunnardJ@carp.vno.osf.lt (Gunnard Z. Johnston)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pheski@gwi.net, class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Gunnard Z. Johnston" at Mar 23, 0 12:12:02 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Peter Elias writes:
>Smallpox, cancer, floods, starvation, infant mortality rates of 50%,
>polio, ignorance, greed, jealousy, SIDS, malignant melanoma are all
>quite natural. Yet I feel no shame in admitting that I am the sworn
>enemy of all of these. And antibiotics, immunizations, stereotactic
>brain surgery, fleece winter wear, organ transplantation with
>immunosuppressive drugs, forgiveness, grace under pressure, tolerance,
>the flight of heavier than air machines, nitrogen assisted deep
>diving, and the 1965 Dartmouth football season all strike me as
>unnatural in varying degrees. And I am thankful for all of them.
"Natural" has a lot of meanings. In connection with human life it
seems to mean normal -- functioning correctly given what something is
and the kind of creature man is -- without technical intervention.
[An aside: I suppose one reason people say "natural" rather than
"normal" in connection with sexual conduct is that men have free will,
so they can do what they choose even if no doctors or whatever are in
sight. Since sexual conduct is usually voluntary technical
intervention doesn't seem the issue. If that's right then "natural"
and "normal" become identical, at least as I've defined them. Also,
"natural" and "normal" have different connotations -- the first has
more of a suggestion of the goodness of the natural order.]
Anyway, when "normal" and "natural" differ the moral issue mostly seems
to be what is normal rather than what is natural. Eye surgery that
gives sight to the blind would I suppose not be natural but its purpose
would be to enable the eye to function normally. The same could be
said about Viagra -- that's why the Catholic Church does not oppose it.
As to sex the question as to normality and naturalness seems to whether
human sexuality has a best function as part of human life. Biology,
psychology, sociology etc. are all relevant to that question because
after all sex is biological, psychological and social. It's not likely
any of those sciences would dispose of the issue by itself because
human life is complex and sexuality is intertwined with so much of it.
Nonetheless, it makes sense for a religious or moral discussion of sex
to touch on such things because a religious or moral discussion of
anything should take into account the relevant considerations.
My own view is that sex *does* have a reasonably definite function in
human life. I've given some reasons for thinking that. Also it seems
to me that the function of sex is plainly rooted in man's biological,
psychological etc. nature. So it seems to me it makes sense to say
that some sex is natural and some the contrary.
>The second reason is the difficulty in defining naturalness. Is it
>what occurs with no human intervention? Or with some human
>interventions, listed by the definer or agreed upon by a majority of
>landowners, or whites or Protestants? Major traps down those roads.
No different from the traps always present when you try to define good
and bad, right and wrong. Such definitions are nonetheless
unavoidable. Even if you say "everyone should be allowed to do what he
feels like doing" it's a moral demand and if you say it you may have (I
believe you definitely have) fallen into a trap.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
To unsubscribe send email to majordomo@dartmouth.edu
with unsubscribe class-69 as the body of the message.
From owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU Wed Mar 29 16:38:31 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E6215871
for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mj@localhost)
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) id QAA05942
for class-69-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:32:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08284
for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:32:33 -0500 (EST)
From: jk@panix.com
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [166.84.0.226])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id A283A30F29; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PanixN2.0) id QAA23614;
Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003292132.QAA23614@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Dr. Laura, etc., etc., etc.
To: GunnardJ@carp.vno.osf.lt (Gunnard Z. Johnston)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Cc: CTerryRob@aol.com, class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Gunnard Z. Johnston" at Mar 29, 0 06:22:57 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
To add to the diversity of opinion on the list, I thought I'd post some
comments:
1. The view that homosexual conduct is wrong need not be based on a
feeling that it is strange, distasteful or something that only other
people do. The view may be part of a much more general understanding
of sex. After all, sexual morality traditionally conceived has mostly
to do with things that -- apart from moral concerns -- don't seem at
all strange, distasteful or of interest only to others. I agree
there's a problem with "whatever I feel like doing is OK, whatever you
feel like doing is not OK." That may be the view of someone who in
general accepts post-60s sexual morality but not homosexuality. It is
not the view of the sexual Right.
2. It is possible that changing attitudes toward sex reflect growing
wisdom. They may also reflect other things:
a. The joy of being on the side that gets more public support and
looks like it's winning.
b. A sort of social contract -- I won't pester you about what you do
if you don't pester me about what I do. That may be good, bad or
indifferent depending on what the thing is and its implications.
c. A desire to maintain personal comfort and satisfaction at minimum
cost by saying something's not a problem, or that the problem would go
away if everyone agreed it didn't exist or if some technical solution
were implemented.
d. Overly-radical individualism. The problem is that we don't create
ourselves and the world around us. Both become what they are largely
on account of established habits, understandings etc., especially ones
relating to fundamental aspects of the world like sex. To me it seems
crazy to think such things are of no concern to anyone but the
particular individuals immediately involved. I've already gone into
that issue though.
Naturally, it is possible that none of the above apply to anyone on
this list. Just as it is possible for opposition to homosexual conduct
to come out of things other than ignorance and bigotry.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
To unsubscribe send email to majordomo@dartmouth.edu
with unsubscribe class-69 as the body of the message.
From owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU Thu Mar 30 09:25:41 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273AA310D7
for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:25:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mj@localhost)
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) id JAA24884
for class-69-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16363;
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:16 -0500 (EST)
From: jk@panix.com
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [166.84.0.226])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 07EDC31151; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PanixN2.0) id JAA00164;
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003301419.JAA00164@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Dr. Laura/Intolerance
To: John.G.Crane@Dartmouth.EDU (John G. Crane)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Cc: GunnardJ@carp.vno.osf.lt, class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
In-Reply-To: <36253489@prancer.Dartmouth.EDU> from "John G. Crane" at Mar 30, 0 09:04:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-class-69@Dartmouth.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
> When she refers to us as "biological mistakes" she does so in a
> context of hate, not love. And that is where she slips into coded
> speech; some of her listeners know what you do with mistakes -- you
> erase them.
I have no particular fondness for Dr. L. I've listened to her for a
total of about 5 minutes and she seemed quite abrasive and annoying.
There's a factual issue here though that's important for how public
discourse is carried on. Homosexual activists say she calls
homosexuals biological mistakes. I read something from her saying the
comment had to do with innate inclinations toward homosexuality. Which
is it? The second sentence I quote suggests the importance of the
distinction. If the activists are right Dr. L. really is guilty of
hate speech. If they are wrong and she is right then it seems to me
it's the activists who are guilty.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
To unsubscribe send email to majordomo@dartmouth.edu
with unsubscribe class-69 as the body of the message.
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.