An inquiry

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.1600)]

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT)]

Yet as I tried to work out in a post yesterday, it's really not too hard

to

imagine ways in which our actions as a nation reflect, via the sufferings
and beliefs of others, back onto ourselves. This is simply a factual

matter

having nothing to do with blame or excuses.

What facts do you speak of?

If our actions even unwittingly
have made life unbearable for other people, why should we be surprised if
those other people resist disturbances and try to remove their causes by
any means available to them?

How have we made life unbearable to others?

So it is with the hatred America seems to experience from
many other cultures. If we want to stop people from hating us, and from
taking violent actions against us, then we have to stop doing the things
they feel as disturbances, or become more skilful at doing them and
avoiding the harmful side-effects on others. If others change their ways
and become less sensitive and hostile, we will not experience so many bad
effects from our actions. But if they don't change, I presume we still

want

to experience less hatred and fewer attacks, so there is still good reason
to avoid at least the most harmful disturbances of others' lives.

What disturbances do you speak of?

All these thoughts stem from the simple idea of self-interest. In the
broadest terms, caring about the welfare of others is simply a way of
controlling the effects our own actions have on ourselves. But that is
still a narrow view of the situation, I think. Why should we avoid causing
suffering in others? Is the only possible reason a desire to avoid pain

and

seek pleasure for ourselves? That is not a very high level of goal -- it
hardly qualifies as a conscious goal at all.

I think the situation is a great deal more complex then this. The reference
levels of the 'people' and the governments that govern them can have quite a
gap between them. I think that, is the real problem.

I agree with Rick's position

To me, a higher goal is a system concept, a concept of human social life

in

which each person can expect the most possible help from others, and enjoy
the happiness of others as a matter of principle. This concept is no

longer

centered on my own pleasure or pain, but on an idea that gives all human
sufferings as much weight as my own, or nearly so. The criteria for
evaluating human relations then become not pleasure and pain, but beauty,
fitness, consistency, and universality, the highest values of the mind.

To think that others feel this way, I think, is a bit of intellectual
idealism.

Marc

2

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.1934)]

Thanks for your response Bruce but I was looking forward to Bill answering
those questions.

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1652)]

How about the Iraqi people? I've read that somewhere between 500,000 and
1,000,000 children have died as a result of the sanctions we have imposed.
That sounds pretty unbearable to me.

You mean Saddam has had nothing to do with this? Maybe he should be
spending his money on infrastructure rather then weapons and invading other
countries.

>What disturbances do you speak of?

See above.

Try again.

>I think the situation is a great deal more complex then this. The

reference

>levels of the 'people' and the governments that govern them can have

quite a

>gap between them. I think that, is the real problem.

Oh, is that true of this Country too?

Yep, sometimes. But not now.

As long as Moslems are experiencing
the "collateral damage" the polls show that the American people have no
qualms about inflicting it. The government seems to agree. (Although it
seems to be backing away from that position.)

What "collateral damage"? There will be some, But that is the nature of war.

>To think that others feel this way, I think, is a bit of intellectual
>idealism.

God forbid!

Your living in a dream world if you believe people actually feel that way.
If so the WTC tragedy would never have happened.

Marc

3

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2146)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.2116)

Sorry. I'll bow out.

No need to. I'm very interested in hearing your reply.

I don't think my answers would alter your beliefs
anyway. So I'll save us both time.

Is that the only time you have exchanges?, when you can change someones
mind.

Yes, I disagree with you. But I'm interested in why you feel the way you do.
That's why I wanted Bill to clarify his opinions.

Hope you reply and clarify yours.

Marc

4

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2251)

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.28.2033 MDT)]

Hi, Marc. I'm very glad to see you back in contact, and hope this means
you're in better health. Even if you give me a hard time.

Hi Bill. Thanks for replying. Hope you and Mary are doing well.

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time.

I think one festering injustice that all Arabs cry out against was
perpetrated when the Palestinians were booted out of their own land, with
ownership transferred to the Israelis.

Actually I believe that when the treaty was signed that created Israel,
Jordon was supposed to have given the Palestinians land to resettle on. This
of course was not done. But I agree, Israel's existence is a sore point with
most Arabs. Should we not support Israel?

Also, our support of the Shah of Iran helped to perpetuate a
very oppressive regime.

Tell me which regimes in the world who support these Islamic zealots are not
oppressive

Of course all parties to these conflicts have their
own stories and interpretations of events, and they all call their own

acts

of violence and aggression "retaliation" for the other side's

just-previous

acts. A lot of the resentment, I am sure, goes all the way back to the
British Empire days, when the Brits seemed to assume that nobody actually
owned any of the Arab lands they tramped around on and used more or less

as

they saw fit.

Bin-Laden and the Al-Qeada network have designated Jews and Americans as the
reason for these terrible terrorist attacks. No mention of British
colonialism.

They dislike our presence in Saudi Arabia and they dislike the fact that
Israel & Jews exist.

As to my system concept, I greatly prefer it to others I have known about.
If it makes no sense to you, I guess you recommend something else. I'll

try

to be somewhere else when you start shooting.

It makes plenty of sense to _me_. I just don't think many people operate on
that level

Marc

5

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2314)]

{From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.2226)]

You noted that Sadham Hussein bears some responsibility for the plight of
the Iraqi people. I agree.

Not some. Most.

How many people in the Middle East do you think
share this view? One of the people who do not share this view is Osama Bin
Laden. Or so he tells us. Apparently this argument has not persuaded him.

I

don't think he is alone. How do we convert some of these people to our
point of view? Or this that unimportant?

I think it would be very important, I just don't think we can convert the
extremists in the crowd, no matter what we do.

They don't want us meddling in their affairs, period. Well, I wouldn't mind
that. But the governments in that area get a great deal of aid from us. Our
interests ( mainly oil ) ride in the balance.

Without that I'm afraid people like yourself who enjoy a nice commute to
work would be in trouble. Can we live without middle-east oil? Probably, but
it wouldn't be pretty.

Marc

6

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0929.1525)]

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.29.0425 MDT)]

Yes, very well. Mary is free of symptoms, and her hair is growing back.
It's about terrier length now -- I keep patting her on the head.

Great news.

We should, but we should also support the Palestinians, in my opinion.

How? The mere existence of Israel is something the extremists will not
allow.

We have taken a rather one-sided view of the situation, perhaps because of

the

Jewish vote in the United States.

I don't agree with this notion. Hitler had the same notion with only 600,000
Jews in Germany

I rather favor the Palestinian cause, though, because no matter how
sympathetic we felt toward the remaining Jews of Europe and Russia, it was
simply wrong to uproot anyone to make room for them (how would you like it
if it were suddenly decided to relocate you to, say, New Jersey?). It's

too

late to undo that wrong, but Israel deserves some severe disapproval for
their cold and selfish attitude toward the victims.

This is a matter of opinion. I strongly disagree with these statements. Cold
and selfish? Please explain.

>Tell me which regimes in the world who support these Islamic zealots are

not

>oppressive

What's that got to do with what I said? If the other guy is oppressive,
does that give us a license to support oppression, too?

If you support any of the governments in the middle east besides Israel you
are supporting oppressive regimes. The peoples of these regimes often suffer
great hardships. It seems to me the American people not just american jews
enjoy the life style afforded us in part by the oil we recieve from those
oppressive governments

>Bin-Laden and the Al-Qeada network have designated Jews and Americans as

the

>reason for these terrible terrorist attacks. No mention of British
>colonialism.

The British left, but the Jews are still there, and we have given them
enormous amounts of support to build up their military strength. You fight
the enemy in front of you.

I see. The call to murder americans, jews and Israelis is justifiable.

>They dislike our presence in Saudi Arabia and they dislike the fact that
>Israel & Jews exist.

I think "dislike" rather understates the case.

Yep.

>> As to my system concept, I greatly prefer it ...

>It makes plenty of sense to _me_. I just don't think many people operate

on

>that level

Well, then, shouldn't we be trying to persuade others to accept it?

I don't think persuasion will do any good.

Marc

7

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0929.1704)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0929.0738)]

When we had the chance to remove him, we passed. You seem anxious to

defend

policies that have had minimal impact on Sadham and maximum impact on the
Iraqis.

If your speaking of the sanctions your way off base. Saddam has skirted and
effectively by-passed the boycott.
_Where_ he chooses to spend his energies and money is his business. Let the
Iraqi people overthrow him.

I guess the principle involved is, if what you doing is not
working, do more of it. Clearly the present administration agrees with

you.

Exactly what should we be doing? Taking polls in these oppressive regimes to
see if any of it's citizens would like to overthrow the present government?

Does that mean we should create more extremists? My guess is that that

will

be the outcome of our approach to the Middle East.

I don't think there is spit we can do to stop the development of more
extremists. I agree with Rick. They don't like our culture and can't stand
our values.

The only governments in that area that get any aid, to my knowledge, are
Egypt and Israel. Neither country is particularly noted for its oil

production.

How about Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait.

I'm afraid I can't see how waging a holy war against terrorists will

ensure

a smooth flow of oil to the world.

Who is waging a "holy" war against terrorists? What ensures a smooth flow
of oil to the world is the support we provide to these oppressive oil
producing countries and their governments.

Marc

8

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 27 September 2001 3:45 CST ]

   Me:

> You've been the one that has defined the context in the past. Ask Tom
> Bourbon. Ask Greg Williams. I'm playing according to the custom which
> you've established.

   You:

So it's _my_ fault that _you_ are trying to win an argument? If these
ideas reflect the control theory "cause" then it is certainly not mine.

Your idea has been to endless repeat the "I see you have chosen" argument.
What purpose did that serve? Instead of a repetition of a "Tis it, It taint."
dialog would you prefer a more systematic inquiry into the history of the
unfortunate process that has characterized the CSGnet and other activities? I
think there is widespread agreement that it has been a process that has been
disfunctional. It evidently has been sufficiently vile that significant numbers
of those who made significant contributions to the "cause" have seriously
considered ending their association with it-- including you and Bill Powers.

If there is blame to be assigned, and I think there is, then obviously during
the period when the most serious disruptions took place I took no part in the
them. What was your role? An innocent victim? Some people have proposed an
inquiry. Maybe one would be useful. The CSGnet archive could be consulted as
one source. And, I would be interested in what a number of people might say,
"for the record" concerning their perceptions about why CSG affairs have so
often gone so badly.

IF the CSG community can't manage its own process more productively, why should
outsiders consider adopting a control theory perspective? When I decided to
become more active in CSG activities it was my goal to contribute to a reform of
a community which nearly everyone appears to agree is badly in need of
reconstruction on a kinder, gentler, more intellegent basis. If I can
contribute to that "cause" I would consider it a "win."

What I have in mind might take the shape of a history of the "troubles." Or
there could be more than one history-- I'd be genuinely interested in learning
in detail how you percieve the "troubles" and your relation to them.

So, what do you think would be required to determine who's to blame for the
wretched behavior that has too often been a part of CSG's history?

Best
   Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

9

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.27.1614 MDT)]

Bill Williams UMKC 27 September 2001 3:45 CST

What I have in mind might take the shape of a history of the "troubles." Or
there could be more than one history-- I'd be genuinely interested in

learning

in detail how you percieve the "troubles" and your relation to them.

So, what do you think would be required to determine who's to blame for the
wretched behavior that has too often been a part of CSG's history?

Since none of us can actually set reference levels in another person, or
perceive the world as another perceives it, I think that any such inquiry
should proceed in the privacy of our own habitations. If anybody wants to
play "Get Bill" it makes no difference to me. I know more about my own
faults than anyone else ever will. I am even less interested in "Get Rick."
Rick has his problems, but who in this discussion group doesn't have
comparable ones? Rather than rising to the bait, I should think that most
of us would be cautious about revealing as much about ourselves as an
attack on someone else reveals. Glass houses and all that.

If this is going to be the tone of the discussion from now on, what's in it
for me? A question I ask more and more.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.27.1950)]

Bill Williams (27 September 2001 3:45 CST) --

Your idea has been to endless repeat the "I see you have chosen" argument.
What purpose did that serve?

It was to serve the purpose of encouraging those whose aim was
ostensibly to teach responsibility to act as models and take
responsibility for their own actions. It was aimed at trying to convince
these people to stop teaching irresponsibility in the name of PCT. The
effort failed, magnificently.

What I have in mind might take the shape of a history of the "troubles."

Then you would have to go way, way back. People have been having trouble
with me (and often with Bill Powers) since nearly the beginning of
CSGNet. The only reason the more recent troubles are interesting is
because they involve someone who has actually done some PCT research.

So, what do you think would be required to determine who's to blame for the
wretched behavior that has too often been a part of CSG's history?

The main problem would be coming to some agreement regarding what
constituted "wretched behavior". I'm quite sure that you would find much
of my behavior (such as my discussion of the "I see you have chosen..."
statement) wretched, I would find much of yours (and that of many
others) wretched and Bill Powers (who I'm sure everyone would eventually
turn to as the final arbitrator) would judge all of our behavior to be
wretched.

But I have to admit that based on the shear numbers of people who hate
my guts for what I say on CSGNet I would have to say that I am the main
culprit. Apparently I am unable to discuss PCT in a way that doesn't
infuriate a large segment of the the readers of and contributors to
CSGNet. So once again I depart. I hope the new tone is good for everyone.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

11

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.27.1950), if you're still looking.

My problem is not with "wretched behavior," for as you say this is a pretty
subjective call. Most of the people I know behave in ways that seem
wretched to me -- sometimes. The rest of the time they're fine as far as
I'm concerned. The trick in getting along with people is to have a short
memory for wretchedness, and a long one for moments of high virtue and
achievement, which in most people I know seem to occur even more frequently
than the other kinds of events.

It's with so-called "scientific" interpretations of PCT that I have
problems (also occasional). It's hard to take a broad-enough view of human
experience when applying, or trying to apply, scientific principles. The
example I have in mind concerns the question of how much responsibility we
should choose to take for the well-being of other people.

A strictly literal interpretation of the principles of PCT might seem to
say that a person can be responsible _only_ for his or her own experiences,
and that how other people manage to survive is up to them. This is, of
course, true to a first approximation. But this first approximation is too
crude to do us much good, for it ignores the fact that the effects of our
actions on ourselves are mediated in part by other people as well as other
parts of the animate and inanimate universe. Our own welfare depends to a
large degree on the welfare of others, whether we care about their welfare
or not. Isolationism is simply not an option.

Our own private feedback loops pass, more often than not, through other
people. If we are totally ignorant of the inner organizations of these
other people, any effects we have on ourselves through them are
uncontrolled side-effects much like random disturbances. It seems that the
destruction of the WTC was, for many people, just such an uncontrolled and
unexpected effect, unconnected to any actions on our part. The phrase
"Blaming the victim" implies that these dreadful actions came out of the
blue, unprovoked and undeserved, stemming from nothing more than religious
fanaticism, insanity, or innate evil. How can we take responsiblity to any
degree for such barbaric acts or such distorted states of mind?

Yet as I tried to work out in a post yesterday, it's really not too hard to
imagine ways in which our actions as a nation reflect, via the sufferings
and beliefs of others, back onto ourselves. This is simply a factual matter
having nothing to do with blame or excuses. If our actions even unwittingly
have made life unbearable for other people, why should we be surprised if
those other people resist disturbances and try to remove their causes by
any means available to them? And given the distribution of human
characteristics around the mean, why should we be surprised if _some_ of
those resistances and counteractions go beyond the bounds of civilized
behavior? Would anything be different if the suffering were in our own nation?

The man who cuts himself shaving is not doing himself any intentional harm,
yet he is responsible for the cut because he made it with his own
behavioral systems. If he wants to stop cutting himself every morning, he
simply has to stop blaming the razor and either quit shaving or become more
skillful at it. So it is with the hatred America seems to experience from
many other cultures. If we want to stop people from hating us, and from
taking violent actions against us, then we have to stop doing the things
they feel as disturbances, or become more skilful at doing them and
avoiding the harmful side-effects on others. If others change their ways
and become less sensitive and hostile, we will not experience so many bad
effects from our actions. But if they don't change, I presume we still want
to experience less hatred and fewer attacks, so there is still good reason
to avoid at least the most harmful disturbances of others' lives.

All these thoughts stem from the simple idea of self-interest. In the
broadest terms, caring about the welfare of others is simply a way of
controlling the effects our own actions have on ourselves. But that is
still a narrow view of the situation, I think. Why should we avoid causing
suffering in others? Is the only possible reason a desire to avoid pain and
seek pleasure for ourselves? That is not a very high level of goal -- it
hardly qualifies as a conscious goal at all.

To me, a higher goal is a system concept, a concept of human social life in
which each person can expect the most possible help from others, and enjoy
the happiness of others as a matter of principle. This concept is no longer
centered on my own pleasure or pain, but on an idea that gives all human
sufferings as much weight as my own, or nearly so. The criteria for
evaluating human relations then become not pleasure and pain, but beauty,
fitness, consistency, and universality, the highest values of the mind.

I don't know how comprehensible this system concept is to others. To me, it
offers the only excuse I have for living. And I think it still qualifies as
a perfectly scientific interpretation of human nature according to PCT.

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1008)]

Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT)

I don't know how comprehensible this system concept is to others. To me, it
offers the only excuse I have for living. And I think it still qualifies as
a perfectly scientific interpretation of human nature according to PCT.

Since silence can be interpreted in many ways, let me say that I
wholeheartedly agree with this and with your earlier post on this topic.

13

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.28.0845)]

Yes, I'm still looking.

Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT)

The trick in getting along with people is to have a short memory
for wretchedness, and a long one for moments of high virtue and
achievement, which in most people I know seem to occur even more
frequently than the other kinds of events.

This is true for _most_ of the people I know as well.

The example I have in mind concerns the question of how much
responsibility we should choose to take for the well-being of
other people.

I addressed this in one of my earlier posts. I am certainly willing to
adjust my actions in order to take into account the well being of
others, if only out of self interest. I have also been a persistent
critic of what I think have been bad US policies, the ones that might
have infuriated others. And I have argued, in the current debate, for
adjusting national policy to take into account the goals of nations in
the middle east and elsewhere.

But my principles also limit how far I am willing to go in trying to
take responsibility for the well being of others. If what I have to do
to get along with others will be more unpleasant than what others will
do to me if I don't do it, then I won't do it. I suspect that the US, as
a collective entity, feels the same way. I think there is quite a way
for the US could go, policy-wise, to get along with other peoples. But
there are limits. I addressed this point in one of my earlier posts. The
US is not going to keep women out of education in order to make bin
Laden happy anymore than I am going to say that telling kids that they
have chosen something that has been chosen for them provides a good
model for responsible behavior.

So, on a personal level, I'm certainly willing to take some
responsibility for the well-being of others in order to get along with
them. I do that all the time, very successfully in my everyday
relationships. I have tried to do it on CSGNet as well but it has not
worked out. I think this is because what I would apparently have to do
to satisfy the goals of those who complain most about my behavior on
CSGNet is just not worth it to me. What I can do that's worth it to me
is just not participate on CSGNet.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

14

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.09.28 15:25 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT) --

I am in full agreement with this excellent and exemplary statement. Thanks.

  Bruce Nevin

15

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1652)]

Marc Abrams (2001.0928.1600)]

How have we made life unbearable to others?

How about the Iraqi people? I've read that somewhere between 500,000 and
1,000,000 children have died as a result of the sanctions we have imposed.
That sounds pretty unbearable to me.

What disturbances do you speak of?

See above.

I think the situation is a great deal more complex then this. The reference
levels of the 'people' and the governments that govern them can have quite a
gap between them. I think that, is the real problem.

Oh, is that true of this Country too? As long as Moslems are experiencing
the "collateral damage" the polls show that the American people have no
qualms about inflicting it. The government seems to agree. (Although it
seems to be backing away from that position.)

To think that others feel this way, I think, is a bit of intellectual
idealism.

God forbid!

16

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.2116)

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.1934)]

Thanks for your response Bruce but I was looking forward to Bill answering
those questions.

Sorry. I'll bow out. I don't think my answers would alter your beliefs
anyway. So I'll save us both time.

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

17

{From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.2226)]

[From Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2146)]

Yes, I disagree with you. But I'm interested in why you feel the way you do.
That's why I wanted Bill to clarify his opinions.

Hope you reply and clarify yours.

You noted that Sadham Hussein bears some responsibility for the plight of
the Iraqi people. I agree. How many people in the Middle East do you think
share this view? One of the people who do not share this view is Osama Bin
Laden. Or so he tells us. Apparently this argument has not persuaded him. I
don't think he is alone. How do we convert some of these people to our
point of view? Or this that unimportant?

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

···

At 01:36 AM 9/26/01, you wrote:

18

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.28.2033 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2001.0928.1600)

Hi, Marc. I'm very glad to see you back in contact, and hope this means
you're in better health. Even if you give me a hard time.

I think one festering injustice that all Arabs cry out against was
perpetrated when the Palestinians were booted out of their own land, with
ownership transferred to the Israelis. I can imagine a little of how that
would feel. Also, our support of the Shah of Iran helped to perpetuate a
very oppressive regime. Of course all parties to these conflicts have their
own stories and interpretations of events, and they all call their own acts
of violence and aggression "retaliation" for the other side's just-previous
acts. A lot of the resentment, I am sure, goes all the way back to the
British Empire days, when the Brits seemed to assume that nobody actually
owned any of the Arab lands they tramped around on and used more or less as
they saw fit.

As to my system concept, I greatly prefer it to others I have known about.
If it makes no sense to you, I guess you recommend something else. I'll try
to be somewhere else when you start shooting.

Best,

Bill P.

···

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.28.0638 MDT)]

Yet as I tried to work out in a post yesterday, it's really not too hard

to

imagine ways in which our actions as a nation reflect, via the sufferings
and beliefs of others, back onto ourselves. This is simply a factual

matter

having nothing to do with blame or excuses.

What facts do you speak of?

If our actions even unwittingly
have made life unbearable for other people, why should we be surprised if
those other people resist disturbances and try to remove their causes by
any means available to them?

How have we made life unbearable to others?

So it is with the hatred America seems to experience from
many other cultures. If we want to stop people from hating us, and from
taking violent actions against us, then we have to stop doing the things
they feel as disturbances, or become more skilful at doing them and
avoiding the harmful side-effects on others. If others change their ways
and become less sensitive and hostile, we will not experience so many bad
effects from our actions. But if they don't change, I presume we still

want

to experience less hatred and fewer attacks, so there is still good reason
to avoid at least the most harmful disturbances of others' lives.

What disturbances do you speak of?

All these thoughts stem from the simple idea of self-interest. In the
broadest terms, caring about the welfare of others is simply a way of
controlling the effects our own actions have on ourselves. But that is
still a narrow view of the situation, I think. Why should we avoid causing
suffering in others? Is the only possible reason a desire to avoid pain

and

seek pleasure for ourselves? That is not a very high level of goal -- it
hardly qualifies as a conscious goal at all.

I think the situation is a great deal more complex then this. The reference
levels of the 'people' and the governments that govern them can have quite a
gap between them. I think that, is the real problem.

I agree with Rick's position

To me, a higher goal is a system concept, a concept of human social life

in

which each person can expect the most possible help from others, and enjoy
the happiness of others as a matter of principle. This concept is no

longer

centered on my own pleasure or pain, but on an idea that gives all human
sufferings as much weight as my own, or nearly so. The criteria for
evaluating human relations then become not pleasure and pain, but beauty,
fitness, consistency, and universality, the highest values of the mind.

To think that others feel this way, I think, is a bit of intellectual
idealism.

Marc

19

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.29.0425 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2251)

Hi Bill. Thanks for replying. Hope you and Mary are doing well.

Yes, very well. Mary is free of symptoms, and her hair is growing back.
It's about terrier length now -- I keep patting her on the head.

Actually I believe that when the treaty was signed that created Israel,
Jordon was supposed to have given the Palestinians land to resettle on. This
of course was not done. But I agree, Israel's existence is a sore point with
most Arabs. Should we not support Israel?

We should, but we should also support the Palestinians, in my opinion. We
have taken a rather one-sided view of the situation, perhaps because of the
Jewish vote in the United States. Both sides act like brainless idiots. I
rather favor the Palestinian cause, though, because no matter how
sympathetic we felt toward the remaining Jews of Europe and Russia, it was
simply wrong to uproot anyone to make room for them (how would you like it
if it were suddenly decided to relocate you to, say, New Jersey?). It's too
late to undo that wrong, but Israel deserves some severe disapproval for
their cold and selfish attitude toward the victims.

Tell me which regimes in the world who support these Islamic zealots are not
oppressive

What's that got to do with what I said? If the other guy is oppressive,
does that give us a license to support oppression, too?

Bin-Laden and the Al-Qeada network have designated Jews and Americans as the
reason for these terrible terrorist attacks. No mention of British
colonialism.

The British left, but the Jews are still there, and we have given them
enormous amounts of support to build up their military strength. You fight
the enemy in front of you.

They dislike our presence in Saudi Arabia and they dislike the fact that
Israel & Jews exist.

I think "dislike" rather understates the case.

As to my system concept, I greatly prefer it ...

It makes plenty of sense to _me_. I just don't think many people operate on
that level

Well, then, shouldn't we be trying to persuade others to accept it?
Actually, the United States is organized around similar system concepts.
Equal protection under the law, for example, is a concept that requires the
individual to accept equal treatment rather than seeking unfairly favorable
treatment. Most of the Constitution, by its very nature, applies to human
relations in the way I envision. Fairness, justice, liberty for all: these
have nothing to do with individual pleasure and pain, but concern a higher
concept of a society. Many Americans passionately support these concepts,
even at times when it would be more convenient to suspend them for a little
while (say, at income-tax time). Some, of course, don't seem to grasp the
idea.

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Bill Powers (2001.09.29.0504 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2001.0928.2314)

...Can we live without middle-east oil? Probably, but it wouldn't be pretty.

I think it would be very pretty to cut pollution in half (or better), use
efficient public transportation, and in general do everything more
efficiently. Heck, we might even start to address the BIG problem of
overpopulation (a condition which I maintain has existed since the 1940s or
even earlier).

Vain hopes.

Best,

Bill P.