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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Feb 2, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> 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 am not sure of this "fact" nor of its implied centrality nor of its 
effective immutability.   please say more.

>  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".

You have the choice of working to end the manifold causes of particular 
virulence toward us on the part of some iraqis.  They certainly are not 
acting from only or even primarily religious motives.  We have earned 
some bad blood.   That tends to be the case when you invade and occupy 
someone's country.

>  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.

Bull.  Invading a country for bogus reasons is wrong.  Many things 
"they" are doing are also wrong.


> 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".

We invade a country and then justify continuing occupation and violence 
as simple self defense?

>  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.

I don't see you exercising a lot of understanding of the point of view 
of the "other" above.


- samantha