I have 164 LBO messages in my mailbox that require a response from me. Fortunately, for all of you, I am going to attempt to respond to only a fraction of them. To the others my apology. This is part 1 of 2 or 3. And also, I will try to make these my last responses on each of these threads. Feel free to hit delete at any point ;-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: Wojtek Sokolowski, Dennis Claxton, Stephen Philion, Doug Henwood, andie nachgeborenen, Chuck Grimes, (Chuck Grimes) ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this digest:
* Re: Alex Cockburn on India: wrong? (was, U.N. seeks aid...)
* Re: Re: Aundhati Roy on the brewing instability in India
* Re: 9/11 nuttery
* Re: Empathy and difficulty (Was other things)
* Re: forgot to mention.... geometry
* Re: forgot to mention...
* Re: black class gap
* Re: Windows question
* Re: agreement with Wojtek (was 'American kids, dumber than dirt'
* Re: Iran poll results
* Re: Marjane Satrapi: Revolutionary Spirit
* Re: Ravi, prime book?
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Alex Cockburn on India: wrong? (was, U.N. seeks aid...) ///
At around 24/8/05 5:33 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>> Rovinder Raki, student: You seem to eulogise the fairness and
>>> efficiency of traditional agricultures, societies and production
>>> patterns. But the reality is that the farmers were exploited in
>>> these
>>> societies by moneylenders and feudal lords. With the market reaching
>>> these societies that exploitative social system certainly declines.
>>> Now what I have to ask you is what restrains you from appreciating
>>> this sanitising effect of the market?
>>>
>>> Vandana Shiva: Well the sanitising affect of the market does end up
>>> treating people like germs. Wipe them out. And it is that view of
>>> dispensability, the disappearances of the small that I was trying to
>>> draw attention to in my lecture. There has always been exploitation,
>>> and I agree with Mr Hooda, but no exploitation before this period of
>>> current, economic globalisation, ever organised itself in ways that
>>> it could totally dispense with the exploited. Even the slave system
>>> needed the slave. Even the worst of British rule which created the
>>> Bengal famine, and led to the "Faybehaga" movement to rise against
>>> the exploitation, it needed to keep the peasants alive. For the
>>> first
>>> time we have a system where no-one needs the peasants, unless we
>>> realise as societies we need them, that we've reached a period where
>>> people are actually talking in India, in other countries that you
>>> can
>>> get rid of small producers. It's assumed that everything, real
>>> growth, real prosperity is going to come out of cyber space, but as
>>> you can see, you can have the best of IT technologies floating above
>>> the carcasses of people dying in Rajisthan and Gujerat right now --
>>> and it will not help them out. We have to pay attention to the
>>> ecological base of our survival and the needs of all. I personally
>>> am
>>> committed to feeling and believing that the smallest of species and
>>> the smallest of people have as much a right to live on this planet
>>> with dignity as the most powerful corporation and the most powerful
>>> individual.
>
> And here she gives a one-dimensional answer about "markets," which I
> assume is a synonym for capitalism. Her nostalgia for the old ways
> ignores all the forms of oppression that Raki alludes to, while
> ignoring
> any of the progressive aspects of capitalism. She ends up in some kind
> of half-apologia for slavery and British rule; surely things are not
> worse in India today than they were in the days when the British
> refused
> aid during a famine because, in the words of Lord Curzon, "alms-giving
> weaken[s] the fibre and demoralize[s] the self-reliance of the
> population." Millions died because of Curzon's moral courage.
>
There is nothing wrong with one-dimensional answers (a dialectical approach, one could say) when every inch of space is dominated by the opposing paradigm. In particular, in the context of Indian outlook today, which she highlights perfectly through the brattish optimism of the IT set even as farmers commit suicide elsewhere. This is no different from your critique of the netroots, a few posts ago, in comparison to boots-on-the-ground organising. Her response is no more an apology for British imperialism than is Gandhi's caution that those, who consider the Indian struggle as merely one against British rule, are merely exchanging one form of oppression for another. The problem is not that Shiva's argument or basis is incoherent, but that it is dismissed out of hand as Luddite, etc. The comparison is between frameworks upon which to base policy, activity, laws, and so on... Shiva's point (which is arguable, but not laughably so) is that there was a possibility (which history shows to be true) of some existence and hence opposition to what Curzon represented (even within itself), but not so with modern technological and capitalistic existence. Also, Shiva is not the first to offer a criticism of the pervasive influence/dominance of technology and capitalism, nor the attitude that it promotes (need I mention Heidegger again!). Hell, every second science-fiction novel or movie is based on this idea.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Re: Aundhati Roy on the brewing instability in India ///
At around 31/5/06 6:30 pm, mike larkin wrote:
> ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote: Yes indeed! The reality based world
> is such a bummer ;-). As President Bush has said, someone just has to
> report the good stuff that is happening in Iraq and we will win the
> war overnight. The pesky Kashmiris, Muslims, suicidal farmers would
> all vanish as so much pollen in a Claritin ad!
>
> --ravi
>
> Hardy har har. The difference is that there's very little good stuff
> happening in Iraq but there's lots of good stuff happening in India
> (including a thriving left) along with the bad.
>
So much so that Indians are heading to work in Iraq considering being shot a lesser risk. Perhaps after another 200 years of "good stuff" happening in India we will either have eliminated the statistical outliers, or at least reached the stage of Iraq today.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: 9/11 nuttery ///
At around 8/9/06 1:22 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> ravi wrote:
> Your response is to (implicitly) call them
>> nuts, equating error with idiocy (this too, Dwayne, is what I mean by
>> scientism).
>
> I agree that it is wrong to equate error with personal deficiency of
> any
> kind. But my concern here is your gradual expansion of "scientism"
> to a
> label for all that is evil.
>
Here is my alternative explanation: the arrogance and certainty that arms someone to summarily ridicule other human beings, call them names, and so on, comes from a couple of things: a) the belief that one can be absolutely certain of the things one knows, b) the confidence that there is a privileged style of argument applicable everywhere that guarantees [not so much] the correct answer [as it does the ability to outwit the opponent].
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Empathy and difficulty (Was other things) ///
On 18 Jun, 2007, at 10:35 AM, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> The dictionary is only a first approximation to a
> concept, ...
While that is true, unless the description/definition happens to be inaccurate, it is as good a start at debate or understanding. In this instance, I found it a fairly useful expansion. More below...
> And if one doesn't have the inside lived experience
> and there is someone who does -- we can't ask the
> ancient Greeks, because there aren't any, but
> straights can ask gays, for example -- one has to be
> very careful about dismissing the insider's appraisal
> of your efforts at understanding what it's like.
>
> So Miles is worse than wrong to blow off Brian;
<...>
> I'm not saying that the insider's version has to be
> accepted tout court.
You wrote suggesting that more than just one person (in this case Miles, whom I will refrain from re-interpreting) is "blowing off" Brian. Despite his (Brian's) words ("detach yourself from the keyboard", etc) -- which interestingly shows little understanding of the life experiences of others -- I am not sure that is a proper way to characterise the participants in this discussion.
For instance, I am all for learning from the insider's experience and I do consider it valuable and irreplaceable. The question however is a different one, involving both a theoretical and a practical aspect: the theoretical aspect is regarding the foundations of left values (substitute your word of choice for "values" here), the practical one is about solidarity, trust and community. I have expanded on both in previous posts so I will spare the readership the regurgitation!
> Is empathy easy? Certainly not. Surely there is a
> "natural" capacity for it, whatever exactly that
> means, but there's a "natural" capacity to learn a
> language, play chess, do higher mathematics, write
> music -- that that means that we have inherit the
> biology and psychology that allows us to do these
> things. But that doesn't mean doing any of them is
> easy or that doing any of them well isn't something
> that, whether or not there's something like formal
> training involved, nonetheless requires discipline,
> effort, talent, and education.
I disagree. Learning a [first] language is an excellent example. It takes physical or other developmental impediments for a child not to learn a language. And if you believe Chomsky or Pinker then you have available one meaning of "natural" to be used above. I mean it in an even simpler sense: it ("empathy" and its use) is constitutional of what it means to be human(*) and able to survive. As you point out, there are opposing tendencies ("natures") in humans, but it takes a particularly parasitic and ill-developed community or society in which the sense and use of empathy is absent.
Just like you I do not hold myself up as a model, and therefore it is important to note that even to me empathising, with someone whose experiences I do not directly undergo, comes naturally. It is only the rat race and learned behaviour that makes it possible for me to replace that empathy with indifference or inaction.
> The extreme difficulty of empathy is one reason that
> good accounts of other people are so rare...
Are they? Whence the universal adages "when you cannot say something good, stay silent"? Our experiences differ, no doubt: in mine, it has been rare instances when I have not heard good accounts of others and even rarer to hear bad ones.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: forgot to mention.... geometry ///
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:33 AM, (Chuck Grimes) wrote:
> Want to learn mathematics? Start with geometry. ravi
>
> ---------
>
> This answers a different question. When I mentioned algebra and
> calculus, I was talking about barriers to get through, not about
> a deeper sort of learning and interest.
>
True... I was writing in a general sense (or to a general audience), which I did not make clear!
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: forgot to mention... ///
On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
>
>> So, it is a distraction to analyse
>> "what my words look like" (to quote a different part of your message)
>> in lieu of what they actually say.
>
> If someone described the way science works in a way similar to how
> you here describe the way language works, I'm guessing you'd respond
> with something along the lines of "rotflmao."
>
I see why you would tend to make that analogy, but IMHO it doesn't fit: those practising (or participating in) science do not psycho- analyse nature or whatever be their object of study. And I wouldn't want them to. It is true that the activities of science are not what various proponents would like to believe (some sort of logical deterministic progression), but I do not then believe that scientists should (or should be permitted to) start offering their thoughts on the feelings and impulses of the authors of works they are criticising. The criticism of the glorified version of science is not that the reality is that scientists play dirty tricks (which they do, but that's not the criticism) but that science benefits from opportunism and plurality.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: black class gap ///
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>
>> I was listening to a smart, stylish and talented musician with good
>> politics who scores popular successes with a multi-faceted effort
>> that explains to millions how the worse than
>> working poor try to live.
>
> You're talking about the guy who says Jesse Helms is a beautiful
> man right?
>
> I think Bono is less interested in explaining how the worse than
> working poor try to live than he is in explaining that the powerful
> people he rubs shoulders with are just regular caring people trying
> to do a tough job. Worse yet, he does it condescendingly, talking
> about riding in Bush's limousine and getting to know the real
> guy. Which is to say, he can get close to people in a way the rest
> of us can't because we're not famous.
>
I don't see it that way -- I think he is mildly delusional -- I have done the same thing myself where I tend to think that when people are nice to me on a personal basis, I can somehow influence their politics.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Windows question ///
On Nov 8, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 11:49 AM, ravi wrote:
>
>> Re: Intel Macs. Yes they are faster because of the CPU, but as
>> someone
>> pointed out its also because these are newer dual-core chips, with a
>> faster bus, etc, etc. Its not an entirely fair comparison.
>
> It is for the user. They cost the same, they're made a year apart,
> but the Intels are many times faster than the PPCs.
>
Many times? How would you quantify that? My Intel based 2GHz MacBook, with a dual core, larger cache, faster FSB, is about 2 times as fast as my 1.2GHz PowerPC iBook, from a user experience perspective. But if we look at benchmarks then it is not simply a year of difference. PowerPC as a general computing processor has not undergone as much development as x86.
>> its generally cheaper because (AFAIK) its tied to a system
>> i.e., as per the Windows license you cannot just willy-nilly buy an
>> OEM copy and install it on any system.
>
> Hmm, I installed an OEM version of XP on a MacBook just fine. And
> it's not like MSFT makes Apple-specific versions, is it?
Yes, you can install it (OEM version) but you are not supposed to. For your Mac, legally speaking (not that I am a lawyer), you should buy the whatever they call it -- shrink wrapped? End user? -- version.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: agreement with Wojtek (was 'American kids, dumber than dirt' ///
On Nov 2, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Ravi:
> annoyance with Western commentary-from-afar about what "the third
> world" is/wants/needs (in particular, the commentary that uses the
> "third world" to demonise the US -- here in fact, I am saying almost
> the opposite of JBrown) you overlook (or at least fail to temper your
> comments with) the stronger, genuine arguments that that "third
> world" has with the USA (and the limitations that the USA imposes on
> their development).
>
> [WS:] This seems to confirm my theory on the perception of others
> that I outlined in an earlier posting. Evidently, the "third world"
> concept
> occupies a rather salient place in your cognitive frame and thus is
> a key factor in how you construct the "master frame" for others. I
> think
> what I wrote about "third world" comprises a rather small share of
> what I
> posted to this list - mostly as tongue in cheek responses to
> Yoshie's rants.
> I wrote more about unions and labor issues, comparative politics and
> institutions, electoral politics, social class, urban development,
> transportation,
> land use, or behavioral models in general - yet you noticed only my
> views
> on the third world.
>
Woj, this only shows that you are unable to escape the frame of your own theory! I did not write that you write primarily about the "third world" etc. I have a lot of things I disagree with you on: e.g. pomo vs science, that have nothing directly to do with the "third world".
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Iran poll results ///
On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:15 AM, (Chuck Grimes) wrote:
> I disagree! Human suffering, rights, etc are everybody's business,
> else all you have is nationalism, provincialism, sovereignty claims,
> etc. So no, with all respect to CG, I disagree with the idea that
> they (Iranians) are the ones who must fight their battles. In fact, I
> claim, it is more my responsibility to do so than theirs, since I am
> indirectly their chief oppressor.... ravi
>
> -----------
>
> All well and good, in the abstract. But civil rights, racial and
> ethnic indentities, the historical trajectories that actually are
> embodied as people are not abstract principles. They concern people's
> lives.
>
> Imagine sitting at an open conference table and discussing somebody
> else's civil rights, and offering opinions on the priorities,
> including which various subgroupings of people to include and
> exclude, and various political, social, and economic methods to
> pursue.
>
> Are you ready to step up to the mic in such a context? If you are not
> an Iranian, then whatever you say is probably not really relevant to
> the immediate issues at hand.
>
> The legal concepts of civil rights are just crude sketchs, statements
> of principle, without any of the much more meaningful developement
> that each group needs to elaborate their fair position in their
> society.
>
> In other words civil rights are not homogeneous recipes that can be
> cranked out by the un-involved. You absolutely need `standing' as the
> legal beagles say. That is, you have to have a stake in the
> outcome. That is, the general potentials of your own life have to be
> at
> stake in the outcome of anything you advocate. This makes you a
> socially responsible participant.
>
> So, as a very practical matter, Iranians have to conceive what they
> mean by various human rights, and then pursue them as part of their
> internal political processes. This is how a people and or a nation
> becomes the actualized historical entity that it is.
> <snip happens>
>
You are exactly right (IMHO). But none of that prevents me from mitigating the effect of the clear and greatest danger they face: us. So in fact it is the "fair and balanced" side that resorts (implicitly or explicitly) to universal claims of concepts you list above, while I propose that we work on the things in which we are participants i.e., the actions of our government.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Marjane Satrapi: Revolutionary Spirit ///
On Oct 21, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Philion wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
> that we not assume that those who live on bark
> and berries live worse than us and are necessarily in need of
> emancipation.
>
> --fair enough, but where does that leave us in our assessment of
> Iranian exiles like, say, Behzad Yaghmaian, who are deeply critical of
> US foreign policy, capitalism,...and is an Iranian who has involved
> himself in social movements in Iran that challenge the wisdom of
> Supreme leaders and the neo-liberal orientations of liberal
> politicians in Iran? How do we categorize such a person once we've
> gotten past whether he thinks the natives are poor imbeciles in need
> of western liberation?
>
I would think of him as a valuable source of knowledge and guidance.
> He's written a book called *Social Change in Iran: An Eyewitness
> Account of Dissent, Defiance, and New Movements for Rights*. I highly
> recommend it, fwiw.
Thank you!
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: Ravi, prime book? ///
On Oct 10, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> You know, the Courant and Robbin's book, What is Mathematics is pretty
> good, and has a lot of interesting pieces of number theory, geometry
> and analysis in it.
>
Indeed... dare I say, unmatched until the arrival of Keith Devlin, Martin Gardner be damned!
--ravi