[ From Bill Williams 26 September 2001 11:36 CST ]
Rohan Lulham says,
Such that decrying fundmanentism per sa, I do not think this very narrow
interpretation of an issue does not just apply to religion. Could in some
quarters US be thought of as having a fundamentalist view of money. I was
disturbed that in the US Tennis the winner was announved as not winning a
trophy but a Cheque for THE Grand SUM of 800 000...To me alot of the agruements are losing me... and I feel like what is
is that different contributors are controlling different variables however
their behaviour is _disturbing_ what others are controlling. What people
should control is not specified in the theory, and thus I don't think
it will answer a lot of these arguements.
I think this is a good point. A part of the argument, and perhaps a good
part of the argument, may be the result of a somewhat covert expression of
different values. These values may themselves be subject to a control theory
based critique. However, an attempt to do so in the current context will most
likely be inconclusive-- thus the "It tis, It taint." aspect of the discussion.
The other way which covert premises enter into the discussion is through
implicit assumptions about ethics.
Rick for instance states that the attack "sucks the meaning out of life.."
(CSGnet 21 September) For me while I find it has introduced a somber element
into my mood but life remains much as it was before the attack. After all we
"chose" by smoking to kill many more people every year than died in the recent
attack. The difference may be that the attack which was imposed on the United
States by foreigners and therefore includes an element of national humiliation-
if one chooses to percieve the attck in this way. I however have visions of us
bombing the tobacco warehouses. It would be cheaper and possiblely prevent more
deaths than bombing Afganistan. It seems to me possible to view the "atttack"
of the tobacco companies upon the consumer as an even more humilating situation
than being attacked by terrorists. However, there is loose in the United States
a political/cultural fundamentalism which shares characteristics with the
religious type fundamentalism. One of the characteristics of this
fundamentalism, a triumphalism, is an unwillingness to admit what is otherwise
obvious. Any country as large and as powerful as the United States is going to
make mistakes in foreign policy. There is no getting around this aside from
turning a blind eye. Of course we ( the United States ) either directly or
indirectly have killed innocent victims-- remember the former Shah of Iran??
It is perfectly possible to point this out without "blaming the victims."
One of the themes of those who are enthusiastic concerning engaging the
terrorists in a war is that the attack has brought us ( US cititizens )
together. It hasn't. Rick has made a big point about how terrible are the
values ( system constructs etc ) of the terrorists, and that they deserve to be
eliminated. I aggree I suppose but why did we have to wait until after the
attack to eliminate them. Their values were the same before as they are after
the attack. So why wait?
I think eventually a control theory ethic, social theory, psychology will be
developed. However, the current discussions ( CSGnet ) demonstrate that there
is a long ways to go before basic questions are sorted out. And, while I've
repeatedly stated my view that Rick should feel free to express his opinions,
because in my view speach ordinarily doesn't hurt anyone, his approach--
charging everyone with whom he differs as "blaming the victim" is not helpful.
In a word it is dishonest-- and this, of course, has an effect upon the
discusion.
best in a confused world
Bill Williams
···
______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
I know. It's not Hollywood.