The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
Bob,
Since you did address the topic I was trying to engage you on, let me respond. Then unless either of us can find something new to add, I’ll be done.
Argument from repetition is convincing only to the person making the argument.
I’ve given a perfectly valid reason (one supported by Mike’s previous behavior) for Mike to say what he said. You disagree, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is your assumption that you simply disagreeing with it makes it go away. You don’t get to say “I don’t think your explanation is the right one, therefor my explanation is the only possible one,” and expect me to forget that I gave an explanation.
Furthermore, your insistence the Mike “Started out” with that is easily proven wrong by anyone who does a word search for “Mike” and then hits “next” a few times. He started out by agreeing with you. The history of the term Palestinian was part of a coda (by the way, any fan of Beethoven’s later Symphonies will tell you that codas can be as long as the rest of the Movement) Mike used to further develop a few themes.
True, it came at the beginning of the coda. As to why it would be in the beginning of the end instead of the end of the end let’s do a simple exercise. Take out any translation of a philosophical work you want, and I bet money that out of the first 10 footnotes at least 6 will be definitions of terms. You define terms at the beginning, because it clears things up and helps to avoid possible misunderstanding.
The reason I resonate with Perls, is because he is REAL! Gestalt is not interested in what you “think”, only what you “feel”. Perls knew that when you start talking about what “you” think, the “therapeutic relationship” will then devolve into ELEPHANTSHITTING! These are Fritzs’ words, not mine, I just happen to subscribe to them..
“If I may be so bold, I would say that Perls employment of Gestalt, in a healing modality would be unrecognizable to Wertheimers’ efforts in psychotherapy and its’ development. Fritz was a “showman”, with a past history of theatrics in his adolescence. Many behavioral scientists saw to much of the “showman” in his approach to “humanistic existentialism”. I personally feel, that Perls was “trying” to move away from the “theoretical” on this level, because it would invaraibly cause the client to begin the process of “intellectualization”, thereby defeating the purpose of Gestalt Psychotherapy!”
Billy,
I must admit you do know your Gestalt Therapy and why Wertheimer bears little relevance to it.
“I think you are dismissive of the idea of trans-human ethics too easily. And I’m not afraid to threaten the Earth with asteroid bombardment to prove it.”
Buddha,
I interrupt your message to Mespo to say to you don’t you think as an avid reader of science fiction since 1952, I am familiar with what you posit? Haven’t you read enough of Mespo’s writing to understand the point he was making and that he is far from an intellectual slouch and probably more learned than all of us, stating:
“Do ideas, conceptual constructions, exist independent of human experience?”
The claim I make against Bob is that he insists on taking human emotions and history out of this issue and want’s to argue it strictly on his own Kantian grounds. My contention, which Mespo and Gyges to a degree agree with, is that he has used Kant to try to turn this into an a-historical discussion, when it is clearly grounded in history. Rather than clarify the issues, as he thinks he is doing, he merely muddles them further.
Finally, do you really think I’m as ignorant of the philosophical implications here as Bob seems to suggest? Truthfully though Kant and philosophy in general has never interested me, Bob’s usage of him has diminished my interest further. That he knows far more about Kant than I do and want’s to make Kantian syllogisms the foreground of debate is to me childish and remiscent of the kid taking his bat home from a pick up baseball game when a call went against him.
Buddha, I won’t play this in his ballpark as he has assiduously tried to do. I know you think I’m not myself, but really I’m quite myself, but part of being myself and following Gestalt Therapy principles is being flexible enough to use appropriate tactics that fit the environment/reality and the aspersions of my fellow debater. Were you in my boat, knowing your skill, I have no doubt you’d be doing the same thing.
True, Perls conceptualization was different than Wertheimers’. This was because Fritz integrated a “phenomenological” approach to psychotherapy that was new and groundbreaking. If I may be so bold, I would say that Perls employment of Gestalt, in a healing modality would be unrecognizable to Wertheimers’ efforts in psychotherapy and its’ development. Fritz was a “showman”, with a past history of theatrics in his adolescence. Many behavioral scientists saw to much of the “showman” in his approach to “humanistic existentialism”. I personally feel, that Perls was “trying” to move away from the “theoretical” on this level, because it would invaraibly cause the client to begin the process of “intellectualization”, thereby defeating the purpose of Gestalt Psychotherapy!
“To me that behavior is the victim archetype. My understanding of the term archetype is a universal pattern of energy.
It’s difficult to explain to a person that at some point in time it’s counterproductive to their healing by staying in the victim role.
Avraham Burg authored the book,
“The holocaust is over; we must rise from its ashes”
Burg gives an interview to Gershom Gorenberg here. Would you look at the first 20 minutes of this piece? Burg presents the argument that the victim cannot become the victimizer.
This interview was conducted 12/9/2008.”
CCD,
Where in my writings have I used the holocaust (Shoah) experience as a justification of Israel’s behavior? I know that is Bob’s claim about some Jews in general, but i don’t happen to be one of them. Sympathy for past victimization’s is never my point. My point is that given our past history Jews are wary that in any country in the world we could again be victims and so are attached to Israel as the one place where we will be welcome if anti-Jewishness rises. The Jewish philosophy of “Never Again” is one that rejects casting ourselves as victims and takes responsibility upon ourselves as agents of our own survival. Bob thinks this is paranoid, history teaches me that it isn’t.
Do some Jews use past victimization as a shield, yes they do. On this blog I have been among the first to denounce that tactic.
Please understand though that Jews have never been monolithic in attitude and are actually taught by our religion to question everything. Just as a black man has no responsibility have to personally justify Clarence Thomas, Allan Watts, Ken Steele, Reverend Wright, or even Barack Obama, I have no responsibility, but do it anyway to decry those Jews using victimization as a shield. They don’t speak for me and for many other Jews.
Billy,
Why don’t you and Bob argue some RCC stuff I sense you would be evenly matched in sheer doggedness.
“Personal to the extent that I despise hypocrisy.”
Bob,
Nice to know, however, your own ego keeps you safely tucked away from the reality of your own hypocrisy. I showed clearly above how your gratuitous attacks on me in this thread began and clearly you were the the aggressor. Ridicule and alluding to my state of mind is an attack. That you ignore, perhaps because reality is inconvenient for you and that is your hypocrisy.
What does gratify me, however, is that you actually forced yourself beyond your “all-knowing” ego to actually Googlng something to get historical context. Unfortunately, your superficial understanding of the topic, merged with your Kant egocentricity let you get it wrong yet again.
However, why would I expect you to understand Gestalt Psychotherapy, when you lack the ability to empathize emotionally and replace it the emotional lacking with intellectual constructs that mimic feeling. You find no sympathy even for your own sister, who was viciously abused and because of it has behaved in a difficult manner. Whatever feelings I might have about my siblings, I wouldn’t use their personal history to illustrate a point on a blog.
If you had the ability to understand insights other than your own, you might actually see clearly that I agreed with the analogy, but you wanted me to come exactly to the same conclusions you had. I’ve said Bob I’m a visceral person and I don’t introject my intellectualism in front of my emotions, nor do I discount the lessons of history.
Speaking of history though your superficial research does uncover that Max Wertheimer was the prime force behind Gestalt Psychology, which was developed by him in Vienna contemporaneously with Freud’s work in that same City. In my library I have a dog eared copy of Wertheimer’s only book which I bought 20 years ago at a yard sale.
Fritz Perls and his wife Laura were indeed trained in Gestalt Psychology in Vienna and were also trained in Freudian Psychotherapy. Perls practiced psychoanalysis for many years, with an overlay of Gestalt Psychology:
http://www.gestalt.org/fritz.htm
However, by the early 40’s Fritz had become disillusioned by the effectiveness of both disciplines to effect change and growth in people. His wife Laura remained more wedded to Wertheimer’s theories and a rift began, also widened admittedly by Fritz tendency to be unfaithful to her. The marriage ended in bitter acrimony and the fact that Fritz became internationally known added to Laura’s enmity and she spent the rest of her life trying to discredit him and with it Gestalt Psychotherapy.
As Fritz’s distaste for the disciplines he was originally trained in grew in the 40’s he began to develop his own conceptions and writings. This culminated in his break with them in the seminal “Ego, Hunger and Aggression,” written with Heferline and Goodman. He went beyond that though to write later books, best of which is “Gestalt Therapy Verbatim” though his autobiography “In and Out of the Garbage Pail” is also instructive.
As I said before I was trained in a 5 year training program by one of Fritz’s chief disciples.(I would mention her name, but since my wife has been under a vicious twitter stalker attack since last night I am somewhat chary at the moment of providing personal details.) Gestalt Psychology was mentioned briefly in passing and Kantian, or other philosophies were never brought up.
Gestalt Therapy simply does not work that way.
This is history Bob and that you would pretend to hoist me on a petard in my own field is absurd, but bespeaks the egocentricity that your Kantian beliefs seem to give you. I’ve noticed that you have a history here of trying to play the bully more and more as some reject your assertions. Rather than reference what you believe to be my personality quirks, I would suggest you look into your own.
“The man who wrote this has no idea what Kant was talking about and even more so would have no idea how Gestalt owes its origins to Kant’s philosophy.”
Bob, having clearly stated long ago on this thread that I am a Gestalt Psychotherapist and now having show you that it is a different field from Wertheimer’s, my conclusion is that you are “the man with no idea.”
“Ya see Mike, you never mentioned Gestalt therapy by Perls, you said you were a follower of GESTALT PHILOSOPHY.”
Bob below is the whole of Gestalt Philosophy, it is a term of art, rather than an area of discourse. I made two mistakes with you one this thread: 1. That you were an honorable debater. 2. That you had some erudition beyond the law and Kant. My mistake in this case was the silly notion that you would understand where I was coming from.
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
Fritz unfortunately died before he could expand this into a book,
where he would construct his philosophy around it. I use it and Rabbi Hillel do construct my own “philosophy” and inform my own moral/ethical judgment.
“Once again Mike, I’ve been tossing mice, and you’ve been firing missiles; I just wanted to know why.”
Bob, I proved with your own words in my previous post, which you true to form did not respond to, that you began tossing ICBM’s at me and your casting them as mice, only proves your incapability to empathize. It’s so comforting to discuss morality, while being unable to actually evoke human feelings.
“I’m supposed to just accept all the shit you dumped on me just because you penned an “okay you win Bob” post. That excuses you?”
I proved, with your own words that you were the initial “shit dumper” so this sentence ill becomes you. I’m supposed to deal with your hidden sarcasm and dismissal, by not responding in kind? When I do respond in kind then I’m to be told I’m not acting myself? I think not. You have some cleverness in debate Bob, but I would define your cleverness as the ability to be disingenuous and then like the Casablanca you quote become “shocked” at your deserved rude treatment. You are whining Bob and to what effect? Marshaling allies to your side? I’ve already stated in many ways that it is immaterial to me what people think of me as long as my own moral compass is pointing in the right direction and in this case mine is. I’m not like you Bob, as you now play for the grandstand pathetically. Perhaps though that is your gratification showing off for the grandstand?
“One of THE major reasons I keep coming at you on this topic has been to combat your insistence of painting me with your own sins.”
I’ve stated it before and proved it before that you are projecting your behavior onto me and I made that statement before you made yours. This is merely another gambit of trying to turn the argument around on me. How very Republican of you Bob.
“I dare challenge your views on a topic which dismiss opponents by claiming you have the most knowledge of and are therefore unquestionable.”
Paraphrasing and mis-characterization of my remarks out of a broader context do not an argument make. Then, however, this has been another part of the dishonesty of your technique. An effort to render my comments without their surrounding context.
“Like a ten year old dittohead, you ridicule philosophy and Kant as if you’ve ever cracked a few books on the subject when you haven’t. That’s mature debate?”
Bob, I’ve done my reading. My comments on philosophy came when you used your Kantian precepts as a “debate ender” whereby your quoting Kant proves all and gives you license to dismiss other arguments in the light of the “great man’s” conceptions. You may be a lapsed Catholic, but I suspect you’ve replaced religious zealotry with philosophic zealotry, while simultaneously projecting on to me the role of zealot.
“ILL WILL is the base element for wrong doing where the only thing good in the world is a good will; you simpleton.”
Tsk, Tsk Bob. The only thing good in the world is a good will?
A fatuous statement bereft of content simply because it is so all encompassing. My sense is to beware of simple syllogisms and those that wield them as revealed truth. Bob, have you really given up Jesus for Immanuel? Sounds like a parable to me.
“Further, the thinly veiled theocracy remark was an allusion to the act of EVEN IGNORING the morals set forth in the Old Testament.”
First of all Bob, as I previously stated, Jews take “Old Testament” as an insult. It is referred to as the Torah or Pentateuch, by Jews and those sensitive to Jewish feeling. This incidentally is not a statement of holocaust victimization, it is a Jewish/christian dispute that has lasted for 1,700 years.
Now, if that was your meaning regarding “theocracy” than your use of language is highly imprecise and faulty, especially when you are replying to concrete statements. In your ignorance of this subject you obviously don’t understand that “theocracy” has been a charge leveled against Israel by opponent’s of its existence, its’ point being to under cut Israel’s being defined as a democracy. The problem in this discussion is that you only want to have it on your terms, by your rules and yet fail to have the most rudimentary understanding of the geo-political nuances entailed.
As quoted from the link you provided Bob, don’t you fully read your links before posting them? This from page 4 of the article quoted.
“As stated by Mary Henle: “Fritz Perls has done – `his thing’; whatever it is, it is not Gestalt psychology”. Her contemporary Rudolph Arnheim also says, “I can see Max Wertheimer fly into one of his magnificent rages, had he lived to see Perls’ Ego, Hunger, and Aggression (1947) dedicated to him as though he were the father of it all”.”
In Ego, Hunger and Aggression Perls was being charitable towards Wertheimer since it was Perl’s first major break with both Freudian Psycho-Analysis and Gestalt Psychology and thus the didication. You would really do better Bob if you didn’t try to prove your your ignorant suppositions, by vetting your “proof.”
The article by the way was hardly an unbiased view since it was written by proponents of Gestalt Psychology, which had been eclipsed by and far surpassed by Gestalt Psychotherapy in recognition.
Bob, I could go on and on with this to the ultimate boredom of everyone else. You, however, are like a child with a temper tantrum and refuse to stop until you’ve had your way. I been reading your stuff for a long time and I do respect your intelligence, perception and at times humor. However, it is my impression that what is sorely missing from your quiver is a sense of humility. You never have to my memory apologized on anything and eventually because of your increasing belligerence people don’t give into you, they merely stop debating with you.
This no doubt leads you to believe that you’ve once again won the debate rather than just began to bore and intimidate people.
I’ve often said that I began to learn I was on the path to wisdom, when I came to realize I didn’t know everything and in the case of possible knowledge had hardly scratched the surface. I believe given your writing and your religious attachment to Kant, that you have not yet set out on that path because humble is not an adjective one would use in describing you. One the other hand when shown to be wrong I’ve apologized for my behavior and admitted my mistakes and misinterpretations. In the case of this discussion that is not necessary. You have not done yourself proud Bob, despite whatever claque of defenders you might develop.
True, Getalt borrowed from a number of existential sources in its’ development. Kantian philosophy was actually praised by Perls…
Bob replies:
“Is that it bears no relevance to the issue of Israel acting like my sister; which, I remind you, is a point you already assented to in your previous reply. We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.”
Mike S.: “To use ILL WILL (in the Kantian sense towards whoever it wants certainly connotes distaste for Israel, especially the angry capitals, as does thinly veiled theocracy.”
ILL WILL is the base element for wrong doing where the only thing good in the world is a good will; you simpleton. Further, the thinly veiled theocracy remark was an allusion to the act of EVEN IGNORING the morals set forth in the Old Testament.
Mike S.: “Both of which are accusations, only supported by his opinions and his false logical connection. Yet Bob has claimed throughout this debate that he is only talking in the abstract, when it is obvious that this is somewhat more personal with him.”
Personal to the extent that I despise hypocrisy.
Might help if the link appeared:
embed type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”http://static.bloggingheads.tv/maulik/offsite/offsite_flvplayer.swf” flashvars=”playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fbloggingheads%2Etv%2Fdiavlogs%2Fliveplayer%2Dplaylist%2F16423%2F00%3A00%2F39%3A29″ height=”288″ width=”380″></embed
or
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/16423
Thanks
“The resistance which is opposed to any hindrance of an effect is in reality a furtherance of this effect and is in accordance with its accomplishment. Now, everything that is wrong is a hindrance of freedom, according to universal laws; and compulsion or constraint of any kind is a hindrance or resistance made to freedom. CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (’Science of Right,’ Immanuel Kant)
Bob initially my intent was to ask for help comprehending the above Kantian quote with regard to the U.N. report: Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, to better grasp your perspective, (this is where the crayons would have been required on my part). However I don’t think I could ever really appreciate its essence, to me it’s a Quadratic polynomial, which is also beyond my limited range of understanding.
What I did understand is this:
Mike, did I ever tell you about my sister who was sexually molested at gunpoint? Did I ever tell you that one of the psychological problems she exhibited afterward was a sens of entitlement to react disproportionately harsh to anyone and treat people as badly as she wanted without justification? She always made it clear in her actions that “since she was hurt in the past, then no one dare so much as step on an egg shell to stop her from hurting people now.” —Bob, Esq.
To me that behavior is the victim archetype. My understanding of the term archetype is a universal pattern of energy.
It’s difficult to explain to a person that at some point in time it’s counterproductive to their healing by staying in the victim role.
Avraham Burg authored the book,
“The holocaust is over; we must rise from its ashes”
Burg gives an interview to Gershom Gorenberg here. Would you look at the first 20 minutes of this piece? Burg presents the argument that the victim cannot become the victimizer.
This interview was conducted 12/9/2008.
Just one piece illustrating why this is futile:
Mike S.: “Unlike Bob I reject the belief that morals exist outside of human experience.”
The man who wrote this has no idea what Kant was talking about and even more so would have no idea how Gestalt owes its origins to Kant’s philosophy.
I should also note that some of the more fringe scholars speculate that Kant was not really Prussian, but rather a Prussian/Zeta-Reticulan hybrid. Or maybe Swiss.
(I kid.)
Mike,
One of THE major reasons I keep coming at you on this topic has been to combat your insistence of painting me with your own sins.
You need to stop calling me intellectually dishonest for a for just a moment to take stock of all the misleading statements you’ve made and all of your premises you’ve attributed to me and summarily attacked as being mine. I’ve been attacking you Mike because I”ve NEVER seen you debate like this.
I posted this yesterday as yet another example of you covering yourself with an intentionally misleading statement. The original is still awaiting moderation, but here it is in an edited form:
Bob,Esq. 1, October 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Mike S.: “A typical “question” on your part in that it tries to reinforce your prejudice re: Kant, even as it hides itself as merely a simple question. Gestalt Therapy, as created by Fritz Perls owes nothing to Kant”
You have the audacity of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty after writing the foregoing?
‘The Anatomy of Sheer Intellectual Dishonesty’ (let’s see how it’s done)
“Gestalt therapy ‘as created by Fritz Perls’ owes nothing to Kant?” Perls stood on the shoulders of no one? Hmm? Gestalt just popped into existence once Perls came along, right?
While I’m sure you’re aware of the distinctions between Gestalt psychology and therapy, you weren’t discussing them earlier. You wrote:
Mike S.: “To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.”
Ya see Mike, you never mentioned Gestalt therapy by Perls, you said you were a follower of GESTALT PHILOSOPHY. And where did that all begin; with Perls? Actually, I think it started with a guy named Wertheimer? Is that his name? And I believe he was influenced by the works of Goethe, Mach and some other guy…
GESTALT THEORY
by Max Wertheimer (1924) an address before the KANT Society, Berlin, ‘7th December, 1924], Erlangen, 1925.
In the translation by Willis D. Ellis published in his “Source Book of Gestalt Psychology,”
http://horan.asu.edu/ced522readings/gestalt/wert1.html
Gee, why would Wertheimer address the Kant Society in Berlin?
Is there some relationship between Gestalt & Kant?
(insert TINYURL LINK TO GOOGLE OF “KANT & GESTALT”)
Apparently so. (And yes, I’m being as smug as possible and deservedly so)
Now Mike, had you originally mentioned Gestalt therapy instead of Gestalt philosophy, my comment STILL would have have been true as to its origins. However that form of explanation would have required quite a few pages of explanation regarding what was borrowed from Kant, more explanation about what Kant was saying and how distinguishing ‘perceiving, feeling, and acting from ‘interpreting and reshuffling preexisting attitudes’ is just the use of the Gestalt template in a clinical setting, and how Gestalt itself echoes a paradigm shift found in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
Here’s a summary that simplifies it a bit:
“An early influence on Gestalt psychology was the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He argued that we do not perceive the world as it is; we impose cause and effect relationships on it and therefore our perceptions are influenced by our experience. The original observation forming Gestalt Theory was made by Max Wertheimer. Gestalt psychology is based on the observation that we often experience things that are not a part of our simple sensations. We have the tendency to experience a structured whole as well as the individual sensations. We are able to read and understand a word that is missing letters because our mind sees the whole even when it is not there.”
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/18033/gestalt_psychology.html?cat=37
Perhaps one day, when you’re less prone to throwing tantrums about Kant, I can tell you more about the great grandfather of your Gestalt philosophy.
———————
Your confessed unwillingness to discuss and resolve issues within relevant current day factual contexts, relying instead on far removed historical facts, comes off like an African American attempting to excuse theft of land and live stock by stating he’s entitled to 40 acres and a Mule. And you wonder why I don’t consider history to be a relevant guidepost to moral law.
Finally Mike, I do have feelings. And it is YOU who have been casting the insults as soon as I dare challenge your views on a topic which dismiss opponents by claiming you have the most knowledge of and are therefore unquestionable. Like a ten year old dittohead, you ridicule philosophy and Kant as if you’ve ever cracked a few books on the subject when you haven’t. That’s mature debate? Further, it is your dearth of analytical skills in the areas of law, morals and informal fallacies that contributes to your ‘insecurity’ and resulting proclivity to attribute your premises, informal fallacies & unfounded accusations here to me while attacking me for same.
I’m supposed to just accept all the shit you dumped on me just because you penned an “okay you win Bob” post. That excuses you?
There’s a post from Buddha above that explains what I’ve been talking about. Don’t let Mespo fool you; your arguments have become more and more irrational, yet instead of biting the bullet and taking responsibility, you’ve been projecting it all on me.
Once again Mike, I’ve been tossing mice, and you’ve been firing missiles; I just wanted to know why.
mespo,
Do ideas, conceptual constructions, exist independent of human experience?
Take for example the concepts of zero and the golden ratio. Both of these are ideas, just like simple operations of addition and subtraction – observations about the world turned into logical constructs we can re-use to our benefit (tools). Yet simple operations are not the sole realm of human thought. Math is an art perhaps but it is a logic foremost. Scientists have proven that some animals have basic math skills. Therefore, logic is a trans-human experience. We have evidence to this end.
Math is the language in which we will attempt to talk to aliens (and vice versa most likely) until some middle ground or true translation can occur. Surely the concepts of zero and the nature of the golden ratio will come up at some point in the lexicographical construction phase. These are mathematical concepts both as simple and yet as complicated as any philosophy. If you doubt this, look even superficially into the debates around the philosophical implications of either. Those waters run deep. But it is arrogance and anthropomorphic to think that we humans are the only beings capable of such musings upon the discovery of these or similar mathematical principles.
I have a stated aversion to the term moral because of its value loading (in the propaganda sense of the term value loading). But I’ll talk ethics. Is it so hard to believe that an ethical idea, just another idea about how the observer relates to the universe – just like counting and basic math, is it so difficult to believe that such a principle could be as trans-human as the concept of zero itself? Is it inconceivable that alien minds came to the conclusion that murder is wrong? It is not out of the question that hive mind creatures may not have such a prohibition as the worker class are cheap and expendable so why is it out of the question that aliens with a more similar morphology to humans (bilateral symmetry, limited breeding cycles, language and tool users minimum) could come to similar conclusions about their relationships to the universe as a human would and place a high value on individual life?
If animals are capable of basic logic, then not every logical thought is human. Therefore no idea is the sole province of man. Why is math, one logic – a given, but ethics, another logic – is not? And just like math, some ideas (not all) transcend the human experience. This includes ethical constructs. They are relational constructs and can be expressed symbolically.
We use words traditionally, but if you were insane enough to want to do it, you could rewrite most works about ethics in symbolic logic notation. Agreeing on a key is the issue, but that’s another story.
When we meet our interstellar brethren, provided we survive the encounter, there will be a whole new clash of ideas where there will be both commonalities and conflicts. Culture clash and culture shock. I know you have read enough history to know this is seen even with human groups meeting for the first time. For our sake, we better hope for a net better track record than what happened on Earth to this point.
In addition, I put it to you that we had better hope the first technologically advanced aliens we encounter (as in they could get here) have some kind of commonality with us poo flinging space monkeys. If not? Rocks are cheap and easy to throw from orbit and this sure is a nice planet if it wasn’t for all those THINGS down here monopolizing the resources.
I think you are dismissive of the idea of trans-human ethics too easily. And I’m not afraid to threaten the Earth with asteroid bombardment to prove it.
Mike S:
I think Bob’s refusal to consider historical fact and moral evolution is a flaw in his argument. It likely stems from his Kantian view that morality exists independent of human experience – a proposition for which I find little evidence. Your comment that this exchange has grown tedious is exactly the case, and I humbly suggest that you let the readers digest and decide for themselves whether Churchill’s prescient observation of the human condition holds sway or whether Bob’s view is the most likely. The great British statesman said, “The further back I look, the further forward I can see.” Also relevant here, I think, and to paraphrase Mr. Churchill, “You have [adversaries]? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
Bob,
You really can’t quit this can you? You are so determined to prove your incorrect theories about me wrong that you must continue on to justify the nonsense you’ve already written.
“Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians.”
Bob said:
“What rhetorical purpose does starting off with the sentence “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israelis” serve?”
I was relating history to you Bob and also conveying to you that I reject the current usage of the term “Palestinian” because it was employed as an effective PR ruse. For a quick and dirty history lesson why not Wiki Palestinian Liberation Organization
to discover your own historical ignorance, your consequent inability to understand my purpose and your total miscontrual of my point. In dealing with you I made the mistake of thinking that you had some knowledge of the issue, but find your knowledge is sadly limited.
My purpose Bob was not to de-legitimize and thus present these refugees as deserving no consideration. It was to illustrate how the term Palestinian has been cleverly used to de-legitimize the Israeli’s and has convinced people like you, with shallow historical knowledge, that these Arabs misery is real, but the circumstances surrounding this misery are not quite what you think. For someone who would seem to see through the Media’s canonization of George Bush, you become awfully trusting when your own pre-judgments are combined with your lack of historical knowledge and context.
For someone who professes philosophic expertise Bob, I would have certainly expected that you would understand the need to define terms and the fact that words can be used to deceive as well as clarify. I was correcting your word choices and at the same time making the point that perhaps all is not what you so blithely expect because of your superficial understanding and your use of philosophical abstracts to discuss real world issues.
But let’s get clear here Bob and get to what you were really doing, for reasons I can’t fathom having previously considered you intelligent and fair minded. You have in this interchange begun to seem petty and smugly egotistical.
What you did was draw me into debate to prove this following premise:
“B
“I’ve been trying to show you how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation. His rhetoric is polluted with arguments and anecdotes more befitting an Israeli zealot seeking to deminimize and draw attention away from the group of people suffering from their tyrannical policies.”
Why you wanted to prove this point is anybody’s guess, but here is the proof of it in your own words. Bob, the “stock arguments”
you refer to are I believe historical truths about the Mid-East situation. I do re-use them, because as you have amply shown with misplaced pride, I need to repeat them again and again to people like yourself who are really ignorant of the issues. My mistake was discussing this with you at all in good faith, because you have lacked any in your discourse.
Mike first post on this thread:
“Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium, but sadly not more so, or to the extent of many other countries. Possibly a million dead Iraqi’s give support to my view.”
Bob’s first post to me and the beginning of his rhetorical set up
“Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?
BTW Mike, you know I addressed this one to you because you’d pick up the counter point of defending Israel.
And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?
AND, this one is truly my pet peeve, how many other countries bombed the infrastructure of an entire country on the basis of the alleged detainment of two soldiers? Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?”
Mike’s reply to Bob
“Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.
First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people. There has never been an Arab State called Palestine in all of history and indeed the name comes from the Roman Phillistinia, which the region was renamed after crushing Bar Kochba’s revolt in the Second Century BCE and not from its indigenous population”
Bobs answer:
“Really? There was no Palestine and no ‘Palestinian’ people? How do we distinguish Palestinian from Semite Mike? Do I hear it said that all Semites are Jews? If I were an anti-Semite, would I be anti-Jew or anti-Arab? Perhaps anti-Palestinian?”
Or is that simply a name given to a displaced group of people earlier than you claim the Palestinians were categorized?
While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Please notice the switch of topic here to Bob’s perception of Israel’s self perceived moral immaculateness. His analogy refers first back to his sister using her abuse to cloak her future actions my agreement that Israel has done this and my trying to present context, but him re-framing it in the loaded, sarcastic connotation of “moral immaculateness.”
My comment which is abstracted from a much longer post dealing with the historical context:
Mike S.: “Third, the reason that Jordan no longer wants the West Bank back and Egypt no longer wants Gaza, both of which were formerly parts of their country and were occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, is that…”
Bob replies:
“Is that it bears no relevance to the issue of Israel acting like my sister; which, I remind you, is a point you already assented to in your previous reply. We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.”
To use ILL WILL (in the Kantian sense towards whoever it wants certainly connotes distaste for Israel, especially the angry capitals, as does thinly veiled theocracy. Both of which are accusations, only supported by his opinions and his false logical connection. Yet Bob has claimed throughout this debate that he is only talking in the abstract, when it is obvious that this is somewhat more personal with him.
Mike S.: “Fourth, have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks.”
Bob:
“Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Unlike Bob I reject the belief that morals exist outside of human experience. It’s must be a pleasant exercise to divorce yourself from the real doings of human beings, but I find it cold and inhuman. Sort of like using one’s sexually abused sister negatively to reinforce an abstract political point.
Mike S.: “Seventh, why should I a loyal American Jew who does not want to live in Israel, care so much about this tiny, embattled foreign country? If the fascist shit ever hits the fan in America and it well might, where does a Jew like me and his family go?”
Bob replies “empathetically”:
“How about New York? You really think the screen writers for Casablanca weren’t serious when they wrote this exchange:”
“Admit it, you’re getting carried away. Even the teen culture that doesn’t know who the first president was or that Patton fought in WWII and not the Civil War are enlightened enough to never allow their friends, favorite comedians and favorite deli owners to be rounded up in any way. You also have the entire world watching.”
Bob just can’t understand why Jews with thousands of years of oppression, 5o years from hotels in Miami Beach having signs saying “no Jews allowed” and towns all over the US with entry signs saying “No Jews, Niggers, or Dogs Allowed,” that Jews may feel threatened by a potential for a NAZI turn in America. This with the rise of Neo-NAZI groups, right wing fundamentalists who may be discouraged that their proselytism efforts among Jews might turn to “Christ Killer” animosity. He mocks my words which were stated in seriousness and honesty, not out of paranoia, but historical knowledge. Claims I’m overreacting, but forgets Germany which in the late 19th Century was the most welcoming of European nations to Jews. That was the beginning
Bob again:
“I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios. I’m a Catholic that’s gone astray, but you don’t see me expecting the Spanish Inquisition do you?”
The thrust of the Inquisition was mainly about Jews, Cathars and Gypsies and the brunt of it was not borne by Catholics. You really are ignorant of history aren’t you Bob? And then this admission and expression of concern for my state of mind.
Bob again:
“Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself? Fear must be tempered with reason”
Could be considered mocking? Comic relief? This is the source of the attacks on me that Bob initiated and now is denying in a protest that I attacked him first. I’ve even had people not condoning my actions, but equating them with Bob’s, while rebuking him. If you gratuitously mock me, denigrate my honest and historically well-founded concerns and then ridicule me, I will reply in kind and treat you to the replies you deserve.
Yet if you read through all these posts to me the clear fact is that Bob has been in attack mode, way beyond debate and has consistently tried to denigrate me, while insisting the debate be handled on his terms and finally to misquote me by adding implications that clearly weren’t there. Now we have him whining as he seeks approval for his actions and continuing this debate way beyond its’ need. To what end? I can only conclude that he has an inability to see his own culpability, an over confidence in his own moral correctness and a lack of respect for anyone who doesn’t believe as he does. I find his performance in this rather pathetic, not a cause for anger, since he is awash in the self deception of a true believer.
Gyges,
In the discussion about Israel carrying out apartheid policies against a group of people now and formerly known as Palestinians, here’s what Mike had to say ‘first.’
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians.”
What rhetorical purpose does starting off with the sentence “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israelis” serve?
Now recall I said this doesn’t jive with Mike’s thinking. Why? Well, if I were a zealot anti-Palestinian being accused, in the eyes of the world, of carrying out apartheid policies against said people, what’s my first move? Deny the victim’s existence. You’ve seen this tactic before in perhaps its most extreme case, i.e. holocaust denial.
Palestinians are people deserving of being recognized as such, not reduced to byproducts of a PR stunt ESPECIALLY in a dialogue about them suffering from policies of apartheid.
I know Mike doesn’t see Palestinians as less than people, THAT’S WHY I took issue with the comment. That’s not the ‘usual Mike’ talking. That’s Mike tossing out an ill-considered anecdote in an incredibly inappropriate setting.
Don’t believe me; look back at the posts. I’m not the only one who sees the elephant in the living room.
CCD,
You’re like a Leprechaun with a pot of gold. How did you find that post? Thanks!
Anyway, I was going to say I think I’ve got a Crayola 64 pack somewhere. You may find my crayon sketch of a Mexico/Canada v. U.S. comparison
Bob to Mike S.(comment above): “So now we begin the Lebanon debate; good. Did the state of Lebanon carry out such atrocities? If people in Mexico were committing the same acts as described above against areas in the United States, would the United States have the right to bomb the entire infrastructure of Mexico? What about Canada; same scenario.”
Then again, thanks to you, now I recall where I first encountered that comparison; that waynebro guy brought it up here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/04/leading-israeli-newspaper-pity-for-palestinians-in-gaza-is-immoral-and-unethical/
How do I thank you?
Big crayon? To explain the idea of ‘no punishment by proxy’ or that the law may only punish the actor, not including anyone who happens to be standing next to him?
You’re being sarcastic right?