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.
I awakened this morning with an epiphany that I’d like to share and an apology. The epiphany is that much of the reader’s, though I expect that herd has thinned out, time and effort has been spent going over the increasing diatribes between Bob and I, masquerading as an argument/debate and hi-jacking this thread into what has become a silly contest of wills.
I offer my apology to the readers of this cant, though not to Bob, who I think as is his wont, initiated and perpetuated it. One would expect that with all the words written, the time spent and the intelligence of the writers a broad range of topics would have been discussed leading to much information to be gleaned. They would no doubt be disappointed in their expectation. The following is a brief summation of this entire interchange.
1. Bob initiates it with an analogy about his sexually abused sister and her reaction to it by using the incident as an excuse for future bad behavior, with the statement that Israel’s actions mimic those of his sister’s. He specifically requests my comment “as a defender of Israel.”
2. I reply to him saying I see merit to his analogy, specifically
telling him though that I must give an explanation, defining terms so to speak (thank you Gyges)to qualify my agreement of his analogy.
3. His trap having been sprung, because despite all his protestations of innocent inquiry, Bob usually hides his true aims and motivations (an observation of his long history on this site), Bob then begins to dismiss all I said and the game is afoot.
4. In replying to him, quite civilly I might add, I explained to him my reasons for my attachment to Israel and my heartfelt belief that it is possible that virulent anti-Jewish feelings may arise and given historical experience Jews believe they may need a haven. Is this deeply emotional in content, absolutely.
However, it is an emotion informed by an intellectual assessment of past history, current rampant attitudes world wide and the need of rational human beings to be prepared for future events.
In essence it is part of being a knowledgeable Jew. Now I understand this may seem frivolous to non-Jews, but it is utterly serious to Jews like myself and while some Jews exploit it, I can only be responsible for my own position.
5. Bob’s reply to me was not only mocking, it was insulting to the extent that implied disordered thinking on my part. He later denied, than admitted mocking me, but then tried to make it into a joke to defuse my “over reacting” and in it his implication that I was thinking was delusional.
6. I’m a Jew and I don’t turn the other cheek. If I open my heart to you and respond to you with honesty and you mock and ridicule me in return, all bets are off. From that point on the potential dialog, which Bob keeps professing was all he wanted, became a “he said/he said” knockdown drag out and new information, or the possibility of reaching a point of mutual understanding was gone.
So for those of you who are here for the intellectual pleasure of a free exchange of ideas I apologize, it isn’t going to happen. For those of you who would treat the view of a car crash as good fun, have your fun but I fear you will be bored more than excited.
I would close by reminding you all that at one point I tried to withdraw from this ongoing “he said/he said” but Bob didn’t appear to get the closure he wanted and so continued to attack me at the same time trying to turn himself into the injured party. Since he is so good at using past movie plots as metaphors, like I really remember all the plot twists of “Good Will Hunting” all these years later, I will add a less arcane movie analogy of my own.
You know the action thrillers where you have a bad guy who tries to kill the hero, is foiled and then spends the rest of the movie trying to get revenge on the hero for his temerity in foiling the original attempt on his life? I’m certainly by no means a hero and Bob is really not an arch villain, but his behavior here brings that movie image to my mind.
Buddha,
Check your email
mespo,
“Second, like most people I would like to see the alien before opining on their particular brand of morality. But even assuming your hypothesis arguendo, how might we evaluate the moral system displayed by our alien cousins except through our own experience. Perhaps the alien defines murder as fricasseeing microbes from a blast of their inter-space rockets thus expanding the definition from our human limitation that murder only concerns other humans.”
I covered this briefly when I mentioned contextual keys and similar morphology. To expect 100% commonality in the logics is anthropomorphic and unrealistic – they are aliens, they may reach similar (or dissimilar) conclusions based on not just their cultural lens (extropormorphic thinking to coin a term) but through their divergent biology as well. What is the standard of beauty for a being that sees in infrared? But what I am saying is that surely as a mathematical proposition some commonalities will weigh out. And as far as quibbling over the definition of murder, that’s where common conceptual keys and basic definitions (like zero) come into play: aligning logics so that that data sets can share information, e.g. communicate.
As to animal behavior, nothing I said elevates the dog. You mistake capacity for processing power. There is more to reason than just logic: the ability to recognize relationships. Reason is the ability to manipulate (re-model, use whatever term works for you) logics and that requires neural complexity. A microprocessor is capable of very complicated transformations, much like a human brain, but at it’s base component level it is a switch with two settings capable of being either on or off. A neuron is not that much different. It only has so many states and by itself is just an electrochemical switch. The question becomes what level of complexity constitutes “higher” life and I still go with reasoning as a basic criteria. Coupled with self-awareness this makes for a “higher animal”. Yes, humans are locked into evaluating experience from our singular viewpoints but sense of self is a perquisite for reasoning as it provides a “stable platform” to observe the universe from. If you want to argue about the relative nature of data to the observer, be ready to talk physics and quantum mechanics. But back to Pavlov. A dog has the basic language skills of a 4 year old and some basic problem solving ability. This does not mean that it’s capable of putting together a Fischer-Price toy. It lacks the processing power to carryout the data transformations required to solve the puzzle. But a baby can kick some ass.
As to moral relativism and changing of values, I think Fredrick was a pant load for this reason. First, he denies the perceptions of the recipients of altruism. That’s just nonsense to say that only an actor can define altruism and not the recipient. Have you never unintentionally benefited another? Did they not enjoy it? Could they not see it as altruism despite your total lack of motive? Because if you have managed to pull that off, that’s one hell of a trick even for a wild-eyed plaintiff’s attorney as yourself. Second, I fail to see how the assertion that a principle which, by good practice of the scientific method if not Kantian standards, should be distilled to a essence that is true beyond our subjective experience whenever possible suggests Nietzsche was right about ethics. About morals perhaps, but not ethics. His argument is based first in culture. He was obsessed with cultural status and it shows in his work. Morals are very much a creature of culture and I’ve said so elsewhere – morals are organizational dictates tainted with organizational priorities. Fredrick is right that humans are the sole determination of “morality”, but they are not the sole determination of logic. That morals sometimes coincide with ethical behavior is little more than happy chance given our sheer brutality and stupidity as a species. Ethics, by disregarding the other priorities to examine the relationships proper in the light of detached reason, is just another form of logic. My argument is that some logics, including some ethics, can and will be found to be trans-human once we break the language barrier. Zero is zero whether a madman recognizes it or not. F=ma applies whether we observe it or not. If these logics are trans-human, logics that reflect reality as it is, not how we wish it to be then any being capable of understanding the symbols (if the have a key) can understand the logic.
Why is it possible that one type of logic can be refined to a universal principle but not another? That is illogical. Even when taking the Incompleteness Theorems into account, distillation is still possible.
Why is it impossible that other reasoning beings could come to identical or similar logics to some of our ethical models if they were not “too alien” to understand at all (a very real possibility)? It’s not. To think otherwise is, again, anthropomorphic and more than a little arrogant on our part as a species. Yes, we are going to be different from the aliens. Very different. But we won’t be completely different. We all share the same universe. This does not mean mutual understanding will be possible, but I think it will be to varying degrees.
Would these “shared logical conclusions” not constitute a trans-human ethic? I think they would be a good starting place at a bare minimum.
Mike S.: “I won’t take lessons in intellectually pristine morality from someone who still bears enmity towards someone he knows who has been abused. Yes I can even feel empathy for that little boy inside someone who watched his Mother’s attention being stolen from him and saw the destruction that those who have been psychically scarred can wield. If you had asked me about it Bob
as you posit I would have tried to answer you as best I could.”
You have no idea how off base and insulting this comment is do you? My sister had been targeting my mother for abuse and blame LONG before the incident Mike. My sister is seven years younger than me and she was attacked 15 years ago while she was married to her first husband. And you don’t think I have enough empathy for her that I still conclude I’d give her a kidney if she needed one even after all the intentionally cruel things she’s done and said? And if I’m not mistaken, as a therapist with a semblance of an interest in being thorough, you’d have to catalog her actions and comments, pre and post ‘incident’ before drawing any conclusions; at least not the type of conclusions you’d expect to hear from a tarot card reader at a carnival.
So Mike, we’ll mark this one off as yet another gutter-born ill-considered personal attack. Okay Mike?
Mike S:
“This is my metaphor for philosophy and my judgment of the effect it has had on the human race. We’re all just great apes with pretensions.”
**************
Now there’s a great name: The Great Apes With Pretensions Society. Where do I get an application?
Buddha:
“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.”
******************
I thank you for the chance to engage your question about the relative and organic nature of morals based upon your interesting correlation between animals, aliens, and humans. I will use the term “morals” because I think it is a classic term used by many thinkers to define the basic guiding principles we must live by to exist in a society.
You rightly ask what if an alien culture adopted a basic human moral system such as the human aversion to murder. This possibility proves to you that trans-human ethics are thus possible, indeed, even likely.
First, It is a stretch to conclude that aliens even exist but the odds are with you here. Second, like most people I would like to see the alien before opining on their particular brand of morality. But even assuming your hypothesis arguendo, how might we evaluate the moral system displayed by our alien cousins except through our own experience. Perhaps the alien defines murder as fricasseeing microbes from a blast of their inter-space rockets thus expanding the definition from our human limitation that murder only concerns other humans. I bet you would find an historical event which prompted the little green folk to elevate the “lowest” form of our life to such a protected class.
Leaving the fantastic aside, even if we look at your examples of animal behavior we still cannot conclude that ethics are trans-species. That animals exhibit some logical traits with respect to mathematics is simply our way of explaining the phenomena. We distill this phenomenon into concepts our brain accepts as similar, and mathematics is just our short-hand way of associating two very different though similar behaviors.
That animals also exhibit ethically inclined behaviors proves nothing about the trans-species nature of ethics since we have no reason to believe that the animals even realize they are engaging in anything like a system of guiding principles with notions of “right” and “wrong” associated with them. You might as well say that animals are “immoral” when they attack and eat the young of other animals, as say they are “moral” when they do not. There is simply no reason to believe that animals expand their system of “morals” beyond basic instincts to survive. Of course, there are counter-examples such as the classical story of Romulus and Remus who were supposedly raised — instead of eaten — by wolves. one must conclude sadly that these are the exceptions to the often times barbaric world of the food chain.
Likewise I do not doubt that animals demonstrate some behaviors we would conclude are logical patterns. Group hunting comes to mind. However to suggest that because some ideas such as similar ways of surviving a hostile environment though organized group activity necessarily implies a conscious decision to act in a particular way, would turn every concept of animal instinct on its head. I simply see no reason to equate learned behavior of animals through trial and error or genetic encoding of animal behavior with human notions of rational thought and discovery through contemplation. To do so, would elevate Pavlov’s dogs to membership in the Academy.
Wiki actually has a good summary of my criticism of a moral philosophy divorced from human experience:
“Nietzsche indicts the “English psychologists” for lacking historical sense. They seek to do moral genealogy by explaining altruism in terms of the utility of altruistic actions, which is subsequently forgotten as such actions become the norm. But the judgment “good”, according to Nietzsche, originates not with the beneficiaries of altruistic actions. Rather, the good themselves (the powerful) coined the term “good”. Further, Nietzsche contends that it is psychologically absurd to suggest that altruism derives from a utility which is forgotten: if it is useful, what is the incentive to forget it? Rather such a value-judgment gains currency by being increasingly burned into the consciousness.”
(“On the Geneology of Morals”)
I do think Nietzche goes too far with his contention that the nobility are freed from moral constraints because they are the definers of morality, but I do so based upon historical events which demonstrate the utter dis-utility of enabling an elite class to dictate both morality and the punishment for deviation from those norms.
CCD: “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.”
CCD, that quote you found on the other thread is about the (self-evident, though often forgotten) principle that in a universal sense, people are free to act but not to hinder the freedom of others who are acting in agreement to universal laws of right.
Using parentheticals, allow me to loosely translate what Kant is saying:
Kant; “CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; (i.e. defendant did something bad) 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. (when we arrest the defendant, we hinder the hindrance of freedom according to the universally accepted laws (aka principles) which are ‘on the books’) 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.” (the implied right and title to punish a defendant, as explained above, goes only so far as the defendant who IN FACT VIOLATED THE LAW)
Since you’re the one who found this, you’re aware that I brought it up in the context of explaining how it is WRONG to ‘bring compulsion to bear’ on anyone besides Hamas in Gaza or Lebanon. Applying the foregoing to war crimes in Gaza would necessitate a case by case approach, but I think you get the general idea. This should also help you understand why (“Bob claims”) ‘history’ tends to be irrelevant in moral equations so to speak.
CCD: “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.
CCD: 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.”
CCD,
That interview is rather thick with some ‘heavy’ material covered at a rather quick pace. I’m not at all familiar with Mr. Burg’s work however from what I heard in the interview I agree with your summation of his position; i.e. ‘the victim cannot become the victimizer’
Accordingly, I should thank you once again for shedding new light on my observation regarding the similarities between my sister and Israel and summing it up so succinctly.
Per the ‘victim archetype,’ while my knowledge of psychology is quite limited, I think it would be hasty to say that all victims exhibit the same pattern. But I think it’s safe to say that your point is quite clear and cogent; not only to me but to most of the people following this thread.
CCD,
I’ll try to finish watching that interview later on tonight.
“bob, frankly the above is full of shit and remember you opened up by telling me I couldn’t change my position retroactively.
That paragraph is a nonsensical cover up to hide the fact that you cruelly used your sister’s abuse to make a philosophic point on morality. By the way within it I hear the whine of tommy Smothers saying Mom always loved you the best.”
Seriously Mike, how am I cruel now, but not ten days ago when you wrote this:
September 29, 2009
Bob: “Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
Mike S. “I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems. They are a country that has literally constantly been on a war footing for more than 60 years and their citizenry has reacted in a manner commensurate with that. That is why thugs like Begin got elected in the first place and Bibi is in now. They promise “tough” action and a war weary population has voted its’ fears and in my opinion voted badly.”
How am I on target ten days ago and cruel today regarding a comparison that has not changed? And the Tommy Smothers mother remark? Could you crawl further into the gutter of personal attacks?
“a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.”
Mike S.: ” Bob, My, My. You’re certainly projecting macho today, however, do you really think that I’m so angry with you that I’d like to assault you?”
Mike, I was referring to a scene in a film; was I wrong to assume you know what a metaphor is?
Bob: “In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.”
Mike S.: “Oh, I see you’re the one with those macho feelings.”
Actually Mike, that was an oblique reference to a tactic I picked up from Scalia’s use of footnotes in an anticipatory fashion.
Bob: “Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy”
Mike S.: “You hit the ball out of the park? Gloating Bob, prematurely I think. I’m entitled to claim whatever I want. Those are Bob’s Rules of Order. Perhaps Bob’s Rules of Order mean that only bob get to dishonestly say whatever he want?”
I used the baseball metaphor simply to illustrate how your word choice precipitated my reply. There’s nothing macho about objecting to you pretending you wrote one thing when I earlier replied to what you actually wrote; i.e. something completely different. But my apologies, I’m the dishonest one since I obviously should have addressed something you hadn’t written as opposed to what you actually did write. You didn’t lob Gestalt Philosophy over the plate, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to refresh my recollection of the influence of Kant on other areas of academics if I included the word “Kant” in any search on “Gestalt” or “Gestalt philosophy.”
Bob: ‘I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.”
Mike S. “What loss of my wife, Bob? She’s fine. You really need to hone your reading skills.”
The ‘so to speak’ part was to remind you of the metaphorical use of the scene in the film “Good Will Hunting” i.e. when Will pushed Shawn’s buttons when he suspected the picture had something to do with Shawn’s relationship with a woman and kept goading him about the topic until Shawn, the therapist, grabs Will by the neck and warns him about the dangers of disrespecting his dead wife.
BTW Mike, if you don’t recall the movie that’s fine. The metaphor’s purpose was to illustrate my surprise at your reactions here seeing I didn’t ‘mock the loss of your wife’ so to speak. But if you do recall the film, and you recall that particular scene, well then… that would be that.
“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!”
Billy,
That is the essence of it, try not to cloud your mind with pseudo intellectualism.
Another thing I’d like to share as to my feeling about Philosophy and Philosophers. Before I met my wife I was dating a very wealthy fellow student, older than me, who owned a Gatsby like mansion on the Long Island Sound. She threw a party one night for all the faculty and selected students of Columbia University’s Philosophy Department. All the top flight published professors showed. Being in my early thirties I was excited, imagining all of the pithy discussion I would hear. I dropped some mescaline, not enough to impair myself and circulated through the party. I was at that time young, tall and handsome so I got hit on by many of the woman, some of whom were professors. When I was taken around and introduced by my then girlfriend though, people understood I was taken and the flirting stopped. This left me to circulate through this luxurious setting and out back to the tables set up overlooking the Sound.
I listened in on the conversations hearing names like Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Plato, Kant and the whole panoply of Philosophical stars. There were sociable disputes and there were
monologues by star Professors, surround by young women/men who listened eyes agleam with rapturous adoration and the hope that their ardor would be noted. Then I started to laugh, to myself of course not wanting to be offensive, because it occurred to me that all the talk, all the intellectual interplay and in the end all the meaning was about people wanting to get laid, or at least to bask in the glow of admiration of their erudition. All the rest was bullshit, because in the end our society differs little from that of the Great Apes. It was one of the most fun evenings of my life as my tripping mind made these associations.
This is my metaphor for philosophy and my judgment of the effect it has had on the human race. We’re all just great apes with pretensions.
Now, as to the topic at hand. Morality in the abstract is an easy
place to stand because it makes little demand on the proclaimers.
People like me who’ve spent many years working with those who have been crushed and discarded by society and yet still manage to find empathy for those we’ve ministered to are the true moralists. We’ve put our money where our mouths were. I’ve seen for instance the ravages of sexually molested children and adult women and managed to retain empathy for their pain, even while having to deal with their angry discharges, striking out in all directions in the vain attempt to quench the anguish inside.
I won’t take lessons in intellectually pristine morality from someone who still bears enmity towards someone he knows who has been abused. Yes I can even feel empathy for that little boy inside someone who watched his Mother’s attention being stolen from him and saw the destruction that those who have been psychically scarred can wield. If you had asked me about it Bob
as you posit I would have tried to answer you as best I could.
“Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
That wasn’t what you asked me though and I suspect that it was your original motive. You chose instead to purposely draw me into an argument, of your choosing, about Israel and then mocked
my attempts to answer you and displayed not one whit of compassion for my heartfelt statements on why Israel is important to Jews. You admitted to mocking me and tried to excuse it as a joke to mollify what you felt was my overreaction.
Live the life I’ve lived Bob, walk a mile in the shoes I’ve walked, see the horrific sights I’ve seen and the just maybe we can discuss the philosophy of morality. However, you are constrained from showing empathy at this site and upwards in this thread admitted it toward what were my honest feelings. There is no morality without empathy and compassion no matter how you define it. Empathy and compassion complete morality by injecting the needed human element. If you don’t understand that in your gut than memorizing all of Kant can’t help you.
You want to keep playing this out I’m here and despite your unjustified feelings of superiority and macho pretensions I’m every bit your equal intellectually, the difference is as Fritz would have said: I’m tuned into the wisdom of my entire organism and not trapped only in my head.
“a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.”
Bob, My, My. You’re certainly projecting macho today, however,
do you really think that I’m so angry with you that I’d like to assault you?
“In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.”
Oh, I see you’re the one with those macho feelings.
“Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy”
You hit the ball out of the park? Gloating Bob, prematurely I think. I’m entitled to claim whatever I want. Those are Bob’s Rules of Order. Perhaps Bob’s Rules of Order mean that only bob get to dishonestly say whatever he want? I said what I said within a context since I gave you fair warning that I’m not a Psychologist, but a Gestalt Psychotherapist. As much as you play pretend I’m not playing by your skewed rules.
First Google response on “Gestalt Philosophy” below and guess what no Kant, just as my five years of training never mentioned Kant and Fritz’ books/tapes only mentioned him tangentially a few times
“http://www.gestalt.org/wulf.htm”
“When I started out with my comparison of Israel to my sister, I was expecting more of your therapist’s persona to chime in and attempt to explain it to me in a rational manner. Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like
my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
bob, frankly the above is full of shit and remember you opened up by telling me I couldn’t change my position retroactively.
That paragraph is a nonsensical cover up to hide the fact that you cruelly used your sister’s abuse to make a philosophic point on morality. By the way within it I hear the whine of tommy Smothers saying Mom always loved you the best.
‘I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.”
What loss of my wife, Bob? She’s fine. You really need to hone your reading skills.
Perls “attraction” was due in large part because he was a humanistic existentialist.
Perls was an admirer of Kant. In fact he referenced Kant and Camus in one of his films and monographs he submitted from South Africa. The existential dimension, of Kantian philosophy is what attracted Perls to it. That said, Perls was attracted to many existential disciplines.
Mike S.: “As quoted from the link you provided Bob, don’t you fully read your links before posting them?”
Yes I do; which is why I structured my post in the way I did.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-84474
I know nothing about Gestalt therapy Mike and I never claimed I did. But, having knowledge of what Kant did in his Critique, I do know why Gestalt is said to partially owe its founding to a unique part of Kantian philosophy. This is why I was able to paraphrase the part about distinguishing ‘perceiving, feeling, and acting’ from ‘interpreting and reshuffling preexisting attitudes’ from a latter portion of the article I posted. In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.
Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy; even though I anticipated you doing so, evidenced by the above.
Here’s the thing Mike; something that CCD reminded me of. Remember the film “Good Will Hunting?” Remember the scene where Will (Matt Damon) first meets Shawn (Robin Williams)? Remember Will looking at the water color painting on the therapist’s wall?
When I started out with my comparison of Israel to my sister, I was expecting more of your therapist’s persona to chime in and attempt to explain it to me in a rational manner. Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like
my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.
Why do I get the feeling that had I compared my sister to ANY other country doing something similar, I would have gotten a more rational discussion? By more rational, I mean, returning to the scene from “Good Will Hunting,” a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.
I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.
Mice & Missiles.
I went to school with a Palestinian woman at UCLA. She was also Catholic. The stories she shared with me were heart-rending, and the sense of loss and abandonment that her family experienced was dreadful. I in turn shared my own families experience in WWII, and how they were the victims of horrific brutality and indoctrination techniques at the hands of the Japanese.
Buddha:
“It’s not the layer of history that he seeks to strip away, but the layers of cultural and political weight around the actions in history to distill as “clean”/universal an ethical lesson as possible. That is the method I see here, not an attack on the history of Israel nor a denial of that history.”
“Distillation is key to his way of analysis. Reductionist methods are a powerful analytical tool and I think you are being dismissive of the man using this method because you disapprove of the method and/or misinterpret its application in this instance for something it is not.”
Thank you.
Gyges: “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.”
Is that what did? I was referring to the post and the rhetoric of order of presentation.
“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.”
I believe there were seven points he made, this the first.
Did you know that John Marshall structured Marbury in a way that he left the final point of the opinion to remark about how the Court had this new power of judicial review?
Since I was referring to the original post, you apparently misread what I wrote.
Mike,
I chose that language for a reason Mike and that was because it is a common vernacular with us. I also understand the contention that Bob is trying to do something to the argument. I not only understand it, I agree. Of course he’s trying to influence the conversation, that’s part of the sport, but I just disagree that he is attempting to turn it a-historical.
I suggest that he’s attempting to do something that looks similar, but isn’t.
It’s not the layer of history that he seeks to strip away, but the layers of cultural and political weight around the actions in history to distill as “clean”/universal an ethical lesson as possible. That is the method I see here, not an attack on the history of Israel nor a denial of that history. Look at what I said about aliens and abstractions again and if you can’t see that the very way we’ll breach the alien language barrier is a combination of math, logic and a reductionist methodology for finding common concepts for forming the basis of communication. Compare it to Kant’s methodology. Distillation is key to his way of analysis. Reductionist methods are a powerful analytical tool and I think you are being dismissive of the man using this method because you disapprove of the method and/or misinterpret its application in this instance for something it is not.
Where in my writings have I used the holocaust (Shoah) experience as a justification of Israel’s behavior?– Mike
Never to my knowledge.
Mike did you listen to the interview? My objective is honestly to learn, I may be catching you in a defensive moment, that isn’t my intent and if I’m reading you inaccurately forgive me.
Burg makes the argument that there is institutional victim energy propagated by the state in Israel. Burg makes his point to me about the Shoah, in that it is the responsibility of the entire world, of the victim and the victimizer to remember that important piece of human history, (minute 16:30).
Burg further states that, (minute 17:36) we have a responsibility to any person who suffers genocide, a crime against humanity, a crime against peace to raise awareness to an indifferent world.