[extropy-chat] Re: The Force of Human Freedom

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Not being a good post-modernist doesn't bother me, I am not too
interested in being a faithful orthodox member of one or another -ism.
I try developing my own worldview, and if it fits well a -ism good,
otherwise too bad but I don't really care so much.
Of course I don't refuse to acknowledge the fact that our world is a
"us or them" world. It is a unfortunate fact but it remains a fact. I
would like to see myself as part of a big human family, but I know
that if I were to go to Iraq they would probably see me as one of
"them" and behead me. So I have no practical choice but seeing me as
one of "us". And I never questioned that if one is attacked the
smartest thing he can do is fighting back. But...
There is a very good novel by Bruce Sterling "Heavy Weather". At the
end someone is about to shoot someone else but before doing so he
feels the need of a long justification in moral terms of why he will
shoot. The other replies something like "if our roles were reversed, I
would also shoot you, but WITHOUT THE FUCKING LECTURE". What happens
of course is that the first guy is too distracted by trying to morally
justify his actions and does not notice a role-reversing situation,
and is killed at the end.
So. There are no such things as *right* or *wrong* actions. There are,
however, *smart* and *stupid* action. and I am conceding that in some
circumstances fighting back is the only smart thing to do. But please
let's fight back WITHOUT THE FUCKING LECTURE. Self defense is the
obvious thing to do when one is attacked, there is no need to justify
it with nebulous and unverifiable abstract concepts such as "objective
morality". Also, it would be practically dangerous. If you work
yourself into a blind belief that only your viewpoint is "objectively
valid", you will lose the capacity of understanding the other's point
of view, and this is a disadvantage iwhen it comes to negotiation.
G.


On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:02:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Giulio, you are suffering from a bit of "us or them" dualism that any
> good post-modernist would dismiss out of hand.
> 
> Post modernism is open mindedness so wide that its brains have fallen
> out, such that post-modernists are being manipulated as sycophants for
> the islamofascist agenda. Being scientifically objective is neither
> islamofascist NOR post-modernist. Post modernism despises scientific
> objectivity as a vestige of the northern european capitalist
> phallocracy. Post modernism sees islamofascism as a 'counterbalance' to
> scientific objectivity.
> 
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The "misogynistic warrior-cult" of islam is clearly the opposite of
> > the "crippling relativism" that you dislike in modern western
> > culture:
> > they believe in their holy war against the west with a fervor
> > untainted by doubt, complex ideas, and crippling relativism.
> > So it seems to me that if you disapprove relativism in our culture,
> > you should approve its absence in theirs.
> > Or are just stating that we are good and they are bad without
> > accepting the burden of proof?
> > Or have I misunderstood something?
> > G.
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:23:48 -0600, Greg Burch
> > <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
> > the Enlightenment struggle is crippled by our very humanism that
> > translates ! into a kind of civility that won't condemn Islam for the
> > misogynistic warrior-cult that it is and has allowed much of our own
> > cultural machinery  to fall into the hands of crippling relativism.
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey