From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 16:06:43 MDT
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> I think that what you are aiming for is what I
usually take for granted, namely, a civilized
discussion of an issue here both sides conduct
themselves courteously and with
respect, and in which each side is trying as
articulately as possible to write persuasively of what
they feel or reason to be the case, and try to see
exactly where the other party is going wrong.
>
> Now one might criticize the paragraph I've just
> written as depicting the parties as too closed-
> minded. But if I'm right that actual ideological
> differences lie very deep indeed, then this is the
> most that can be hoped for while discussing
> *issues*.
> That is, whether it's *Iraq* or *profiling*, the
> best that can be hoped for are interesting
> discussions
> that permit each party to raise objections to the
> other's vision and to articulate their own position.
>
> The "meta" on the other hand that *I* was getting at
> is rising above ideological differences *entirely*.
> In this kind of investigation, one strives to have
> one's writing or points to be completely independent
> of one's ideology. Operationally: if it can be
> seen what your allegiance is from what you have
written, then you have failed.
>
> Observe that no one could tell from what we have
> written above what are our positions on the
political
> spectrum.
>
> In *this* meta mode, one attempts to objectively
> explain why rightists are to the right and leftists
> to the left, that is, what psychology or values
> at root distinguish them.
>
> > Yes, respect and civility, but... after may years
> at
> > this (watching the world), and much hesitation and
> > 'benefit of the doubt', I have come to the
> conclusion
> > that, despite the "symmetries in many ways", there
> > are some fundamental 'asymmetries'.
>
> Great! I've always looked for them, but never have
> actually found them for sure.
>
> > Person X, an individual of good faith, says two
> and
> > two are three. Person Y, an individual of good
> faith,
> > says two and two are five. You got symmetry.
> Person
> > Z, an individual of good faith, says two and two
> is
> > four. Now you have asymmetry. And making the
> situation
> > more difficult is the fact that, because persons X
> and Y
> > are persons of good faith, it is clear that,
> antecedent
> > to their 'mathematical' errors is a corruption of
> their
> > thought processes, a corruption of which they are
> > unaware. Sometimes differences are "diversity",
> and
> > sometimes they're just plain wrong.
>
> But I believe your analogy badly flawed. Were our
> differences mathematical, or even scientific, then
> time would greatly serve to show one side, as you
> so delicately put it, *wrong*.
In history, law, economics, politics etc the
asymmetry--the clear assessment of correct or
incorrect(or--more judgementally--right or wrong)--may
be clouded by different 'interpretations' of 'the
facts'.
By use of the 'mathematical' I hoped to show examples
of 'symmetry' and 'asymmetry' while avoiding any
spillover of 'muddiness' from the underlying facts. I
was trying to keep the issue of
'symmetry'--wrong/wrong vs right/wrong--clear.
Only politeness and timidity keeps us from taking the
crucial step past correctness and incorrectness, to
the issue of right and wrong.
A person who is misinformed can discuss an issue, be
wrong, yet not be guilty of bad faith. Happens all
the time, so abundant is misinformation. But after a
while it becomes difficult not to conclude that there
is more going on in these disputes over facts than
naivete and lack of sophistication. Because the vast
majority of those involved are well beyond innocence,
ignorance, and lack of sophistication. That something
more is self-interest. Thus is born the
self-justifying mythology--Divine right of kings;
social Darwinism, etc)-- of "conservatism": "I've
stolen as much as I can, now it's time destroy the
truth/evidence about how I got it, so I can hold onto
it (as long as possible)."
> Do you have any good examples where history has
> indubitably concluded that one side was *right*
> and the other *wrong* in any intensely ideological
> debate?
Sure: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Why so clearly wrong?
Because they were both the enemy and the losers. But
the clarity of these crimes combined with the
exclusively 'enemy' nature of the perpetrators is
suggestive. Suggestive that there are crimes of equal
clarity committed by 'our' side and 'our' allies.
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Taiwan*, all of Central
America. The Russkies shoot down Flt 007 and it's
"Monsters!" The US shoots down the Iranian airbus,
and it's "Whoops! Sorry. Accident." Osama kills three
thousand Americans and it's barbaric savagery. The US
inflicts a thousand 911's on SE Asia, and it's "a
noble cause". Only a child or a corrupted intellect
could accept this dichotomy.
> Even today it is hardly decided who was
> right in the partisan battles of ancient Athens.
>
> I accuse you of thinking that your side of the
> political spectrum is right in the same way that
> Darwin turned out to be right.
I accept the accusation and wear it as a badge of
honor. My side IS right, both factually and morally.
I see from below that we may be talking about
different things. My "right and wrong" applies to
global executive homicide, not economic systems or
ideological attitudes regarding social welfare, wealth
redistribution, and property rights. About these
latter there is not only room for discussion, but room
as well for diversity. Let each person freely choose
what system they support, and live where that system
is in place. (In a huge place like the US this is a
tad difficult, though States, counties, and
neighborhoods can provide some opportunity for
customized diversity.)
> Whereas I think,
> quite on the contrary, that my side of the political
> spectrum is *right* only to the extent that I
> approve of certain values (e.g. "equality" vs.
> "total wealth production", or vice-versa).
>
> (To amplify on my last example, some people hold
> equality of distribution to be much more an
> important
> factor in modern economies than other people. The
> latter are more willing than the former to sacrifice
> more equal distributions for the sake of greater
> growth, etc.)
As I said, these sorts of matters are not crucial to
me. They seem less about right and wrong, than about
preferences, opinions, and degrees of efficiency. I'm
perfectly happy to have them dealt with by discussion
and compromise and vote. If the outcome is really
horrendous--and I've not seen such an outcome in our
system--then I can always go to Canada or Belize.
Funny thing about compromise. A good one makes no one
happy. That's how you know that it's a good one.
<snip>
> >>> Regard for truth is demoted to 'how can it help
> >>> me win', which is contempt for truth.
>
> >> Again, I don't see anyone here who has contempt
> for
> >> the truth.
>
> > "...anyone here..."? I have seen people 'here'
> refuse
> > the truth.
>
> You mean because they refuse to see the light as
> propounded by your own personal political god?
Let me boldly speak the name of he who you--out of
politeness, or else as a wry reference to a prior
characterization of mine--have left unnamed: Chomsky.
Regarding 'the light' however, I must object. When
indisputable documentation of historical fact is
presented, then 'the light' goes on in one's head if
and only if one opens one's eyes. The refusal is the
blindness--and the discredit--of he who WILL NOT see.
> If not that, then what other sort of truth did
> you see people resist? Mind you, I can't make
> any sense of what you're saying unless you mean
> that they just point blank rejected a fact that
> had been shown to obtain from a credible source.
Exactly what I mean.
> I understand how resort to "values" can be a face
> saving argument. As far back as when I was ten
> years old I tried to save the face of a friend
> who couldn't keep the rhythm in our little clarinet
> duet. As we kept failing, I informed his mother
> that "it is almost impossible for us to really
> do it exactly together", though now, of course,
> I realize that I wasn't fooling her a bit in all
> probability.
I knew you were a sweetheart, Lee. ;-)
------------------------------------
My email program truncated the message above. I have
restored the truncated portion below, but without the
usual extra layer of ">" formatting.
------------------------------------
But this is *not* like that. Jeff, do you suddenly
think that it's going to be REVEALED whether the
conservatives or the progressives were *right*,
and all on the losing side who are honest will
suddenly confess their errors?
[Jeff] Regarding world homicide and the theft which
motivates it, the truth is already revealed. The
'losing' side (as regards the facts, 'winning' side as
regards the power struggle) the conservatives, never
confess.
> Perhaps I'm being obtuse, or contentious, but I just
> didn't like being led to the [your]
"understanding"...
> It is not the case that "their adversaries are
neither
> stupid, nor criminal, nor more blind, nor of lower
> morality, nor less educated than one."
> People are what they are and I'll take it from
there.
Well, throw all those, the blind, or stupid, or less
educated, or immoral out of the equation for a minute.
Are any remaining on that side of the political
spectrum you oppose?
[J] Care must be taken at this juncture to
distinguish the two issues which I separate above:
global homicide & theft, vs political/economic
systems. Regarding the first, none remain. Regarding
the latter, all remain, and welcome.
>> Moreover, how do you know that you haven't already
>> done that? How do you know that your loyalty to
>> decades of ideological stances has filtered out
>> that which goes against your deepest beliefs and
>> has misled you in some ways? (These remarks apply
>> to me too, of course.)
> Ahhh. That's the great question. I'll keep
> watching myself. You can help.
Yes, but my point is that one *can't* know that.
You can *try* to watch yourself, of course, but
the best that you can ever do is face inconsistencies
in your own belief system and rectify them. And
that can always be done, else all the liberals
(conservatives) would long ago have gone extinct,
just as the Ptolemaicists have.
[J] I agree Lee, that one cannot, due to the
inherently subjective nature of experience, step
beyond the subjective view. But there are things
outside oneself that are not subjective. Documents,
biographies, corpses.
> In my youth I was wrong about almost everything
> historic or ideological.
But all you can mean by that, if we are speaking
objectively, is that the *you* of then disagrees
with the *you* of now. You *can't* know that
given another fifty years you won't change sides
again!
[J] There were documents and corpses I wasn't told
about at the time. These informational disadvantages,
augmented by appropriately configured lies
(appropriate to the interests of the ruling class)
substituted for facts, misled me. But I want to be
agreeable, so let me add that I'm still plenty
ignorant, without any outside help. So, fifty years
hence I may indeed have to revise my views, and devote
a major portion of my time to cranking out a
fifty-year backlog of retractions and apologies. ;-)
> If I was lucky, it was in somehow not being so
> desperately attached to the crap or so tormented
> by the idea of being wrong, that I couldn't
> discard it. To this day I keep finding bits
> and pieces of hogwash that need to be tossed
> away and the little synaptic vesicle in which
> they festered sanitized.
Well, good for you. I also feel myself adrift
politically, though moving very slowly. Unlike
you, however, I don't find little *bits* constantly
that need to be purged. An interesting difference.
> I suppose though, that you were prompting for a
> collegial "we're both stalwart fellows, huzzah!"
> Fine by me (flashes stalwart fellow secret hand
signal).
> Be honest, now: ;-)
Well, yes, I did expect that you would agree that
we are closer to showing (at least on some occasions)
a more sincere desire to find the truth than some
on this list.
[J] I would like to think that EVERYONE desires to
find the truth, but that but that we all face
obstacles. Some are fortunate enough to overcome
them, and others face obstacles too great for them to
overcome. I'm fond of thinking that people don't
really disagree, they misunderstand.
>> no insult intended: would you say that *one*
>> side of the political debates is *far* more
>> resistant to truth?
> The established orthodoxy is almost always fiercely
> resistant to change. For the obvious reason that,
> if you're king of the hill, change can only mean
> heading off downhill. Since truth is an essential
> tool for all, keeping it from your adversaries is
> an effective way of keeping yourself in power.
I think that you are dodging the question.
[J] You're right. At that moment I didn't want to
say, "Conservatives bad, progressives ("liberals" sans
the celebratory venom of the endearment "nigger")
good. But I chickened out.
Yes, we know how entrenched administrations in power
in
Washington (or in the Kremlin) can do amazing
ideological gymnastics when it suits them. I meant
by "side" left or right. Do you think that one
side is *far* more resistant to truth?
> So, yes, one side is far more resistant to the
truth.
You do mean one of (left, right) I take it?
[J] Yes. I mean the right. But, when I think of how
many leftists seem totally flaky to me, I have to
admit--and readily, too--that the left/right
difference is miniscule. It's a human thing. Humans
have brains, with which one can achieve stupidity.
Ahh, ambition.
Best, Jeff Davis
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do
as you damn well please. And with it comes the only
basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
P.J. O'Rourke
*Little known bit of historical trivia. When Chaing
Kai Shek retreated to Taiwan, the island had a
separate culture and political class (not communists,
either). Chaing wiped out 20,000 of them in the
process of assuming power there. Didn't read about
that in your history books, did ya?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:25 MST