Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (37704)	8/13/2002 8:56:09 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It is relevant, I think. If you see the current world situation as an ideological war, Western liberal democracy vs. Fundamental militant Islam, a debate on how ideas shape reality and reality shapes action is important. If we replace the government in Iraq without altering the worldview of the Iraq people it will be not be a sustainable change. Well, I'm not particularly into indoctrination. Moreover, as I understand the Iraqi situation, it's multiple realities: the Kurds in the north, the Shias in the south, and the Sunnis in the middle. Lots of different religious views and, no doubt, underneath it all, several different views of the proper relation of church and state. The more I think about your formulation the more I find it kind of ironical. One of the starting points, at least one of the French starting points for pomo, was a conviction that the meta histories were defunct--Marxism, Christianity, Democracy, you name it. Any history which presumed to have tapped the secrets of the universe, of human life, to have some privileged lock on the universal truth of things, the notion was something like, "we are all tapped out guys, let's think smaller thoughts. As humans, we've slaughtered millions in the names of these truths and we haven't done a helluva lot to improve the human condition. Perhaps made it worse. See Eric Hobsbawm's wonderful history of the short 20th Century. Kuhn is a distinctly different kettle of fish. Geez, I'm rambling. Haven't had a bit to drink. It's not really possible to seriously discuss the kinds of formulations you are proposing on a thread in which the best rhythm is the short, punchy post, the one that takes all of two minutes to compose.

To: paul_philp who wrote (37704)	8/13/2002 9:01:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You have quoted some of the more extreme notions but I think you would find that the more rigorous thinkers end up on more reasonable ground. These are not extreme notions Paul. They are simple definitions that are taken to their logical conclusion. What I did was define the terms. This is a must in real science, (you would not want to fly in an airplane that was designed by a team of Engineers that could not define F=MA!) Rigorous definitions are a "No No" in the Social Sciences and Philosophy Departments. Those people don't like to be pinned down. It is much more fun to build utopias and engage in Academic debates when you are irresponsible. That is why most of their work is ignored by "Hard" Science Departments. Unfortunately, it is not ignored by Tyrants when they want to put out propaganda. the short, punchy post, the one that takes all of two minutes to compose. I find, sometimes, that those are the toughest to get right. I can ramble on forever in the long ones. :^) Reminds me. When someone asks "What do you have agains't Social Science?", My response is, "It isn't Social, and it isn't Science. Other than that, it is fine!" lindybill@shortandpunchy.com