Clint's Reposts

The Buddha meets bin Laden on the road one day...

Response to The problem with historical analysis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that human emotion carries the day, but to me that's half of what historical analysis is about. I don't think the emotions that motivate people to kill others have changed that much since mankind's prehistory. In fact, I think that the reason war persists today probably has more to do with the instincts cultivated during the hundreds of thousands of years that humans lived in small tribal bands than it does with anything that's happened in the last decades or centuries. Our culture and technology evolve so much faster than our genes that it's interesting to speculate whether our deepest emotional makeup is suited at all to cope with the complex civilization we now live in. After working for a while in Washington DC I came away with the feeling that political parties act very much like rival bands of hunters fighting over a hunting ground. As humans we have a huge emotional need for vilification and this drives a lot of our institutions.

Interesting that you mention Tao's description of Buddhism in this connection. I certainly agree that the ultimate determinate of "politics and public policy" is how people cope with rapid social change, and an awful lot of that coping capacity is seated in how we conceive ourselves in relation to the Eternal and Unchanging. I see fundamentalism--both the militant Islamism that feeds the terrorist psyche and the hawkish Christian or Jewish variety that seems to underpin the "neo-conservative" outlook--to be premised on the idea that absolute Truth is not just knowable, but known with the unshakeable certainty of revelation. That a certain group of people has been anointed by God (perhaps by a particular spiritual experience) to know this Truth and that for the anointed all doubts and fears can be removed by trusting this revelation. This state of mind results in attitudes that are tremendously rigid and frequently forces individuals into dilemmas where the only alternative to denying that uncertainty is a dangerous kind of extremism. Put two groups of fundamentalists with opposing views of absolute Truth on the same planet and give them access to a lot of destructive technology and you have a very scary world indeed.

The Buddhists have an interesting view that belief is actually a hindrance to understanding reality. It's interesting that we use the word "grasp" to describe the action of the mind since that's in a more literal sense what it tries to do when it believes: it tries to hold on tight to conceptions of a universe that is in constant flux--and to reject as "wrong" or "bad" changes that seem to threaten our beliefs. Even if God is permanent and unchanging, I wonder if our attempts to fix him in our minds (those minds so fearful of the unknown) don't do as much to bring us closer through faith as they do to keep us from knowing him at all. Are we so certain we can discriminate true religious experience from the limited mind's instinctive demand to impose certainty on the universe? What kind of proof should we demand of our beliefs before we accept that our seeking is over and we've arrived at Truth?

I'm not advocating atheism or even agnosticism as the antidote to the perilous tide of fundamentalism that seems to have risen both abroad and here at home in recent decades. I guess I'm just saying we need to cultivate the ability to accept, even embrace uncertainty about what God demands of us. Perhaps if we were able to take a more humble view of our capacity to know Him (or to even know ourselves) we could learn to release some of our fears about other uncertainties of life. The odds of being the victim--or even knowing a victim of a terrorist attack on US soil are still vanishingly small compared to other perils that could readily be avoided with a much smaller expenditure of resources and human life. It would be great if we could let our sense of terror at the name of "Al Qaeda" rise and fall like a deep breath, see that like everything else in this life that knot in our stomach is temporary, and then respond from a quieter place in thought.

I don't know if it's the realization of nothingness, or the acceptance of a "positionless position," or what that frees us from that instinctive pre-rational fear of the "other" and the uncertain. I agree that our language probably isn't adequate to describe the way to that freedom, after all, language presumably embodies the same limitations as the rest of our thinking, right? But I think we're on the same wavelength as far as seeing that questions about things like terrorism may demand a level of self-realization that many of us aren't even considering right now. Without that self-realization, we're likely to keep falling (confidently) into old ruts over and over, both individually and as a civilization. Perhaps that's the real reason that history repeats itself, eh?

David

You've done a great job of supporting your viewpoint through reasoned historical analysis. The problem for you is that even if your historical analysis is sound, and ties neatly into a defensible resolution of your position, the world is much crazier and unpredictable than your arguments can sustain. The reason is that while you can put a historical context to present events, it is human emotion that carries the day.

It doesn't really matter that we shouldn't have gotten into WW1, we did. And I don't think you'll find many who would agree that we shouldn't have entered WWII. The same can be said for what James Woolsey calls WW3, which led ultimately to a huge shift in the geopolitical scene. As for WW4 (fine, lets call it that), already Al Qaeda is claiming possession of "suit-case" nuclear weapons--who knows if it's true, but emotionally we are prone to believe it. Even the name Al Queda is a placeholder name for something much larger than Al Qaeda. Just saying the name Al Qaeda--doesn't it evoke a sort of fear and worry to one's thoughts? That would be the emotion I'm talking about.

It comes as no surprise to me and I doubt to you either, that the political class uses these emotions to further their aims. I would go so far as to say most politicians are acting from emotion as well and simply amplify and reflect the emotions of their constituents. If it were simple for everyone to sit down and simply analyze the geopolitical situation as you have been doing, we would have resolved all our global relationship problems long ago.

If we analyze our own inclinations, we see that we, too, are bringing our own emotional bias to the table here. Interestingly, we've both reached different and often opposite emotional conclusions, even though we have access to the same historical data. We paradoxically *create* our own results based on our historical interpretations. Physicists have discovered such paradoxical results (and this has huge metaphysical implications) in their experiments with light.

The only real escape from the grip of this is to consider what Tao has been going on about in other posts: a strong sense of nothingness. I prefer to call it having a position and yet being positionless, but frankly I don't think we have the language to adequately describe the place.

My initial post in this thread was meant to reveal why and where we are going with WW4. You could be right as rain historically and it wouldn't matter. I am saying that what is going to happen will happen as a result of something other than historical experience. Tao, speaking of fundamentalism, got it correct. And he acknowledged that he doesn't have an answer--how could he?

C

David wrote in a post:

"The war in Iraq ... we will have to put our tails between our legs and go home. It's only a question of time and casualties."

Well of course, he's right. Especially in today's America. People grow tired easily, ever since post WWII. And it's a foregone conclusion that giving up will happen in most of Europe, as we are beginning to see. But this was all predictable. Kerry really does stand a good chance, I see that now.

So what will happen? After all, we are still the infidels. Our values represent to the world of Islam an unallowable fault. Unless we all convert to Islam we are an infestation of the planet. Standing at the ready is an "army" of souls willing to die to put a stop to the seemingly unstoppable influx of our "ideology". We are the enemy. After all, we are talking about gay marriage here in the U.S., while they are still tormented by how much face a woman should reveal. Can anything be more ideologically different than that. Negotiate this!

Yes, it's not a war in the old sense. So how does one fight a highly organized and technological society? In a word, Terror.

It works so well. As we've seen in Spain, a small number of people can effect a sea of change. All Islamic fighters need do is continue this approach of terror, knowing in their hearts - and they've always known this - what David is saying - we will have to put our tails between our legs and go home. Of course it will work. It is going to work, it has worked, and it will work. It is going to work soon now.

The solution to many on this forum, is, as David said, to "abandon our delusions that we can control the world and focus on improving and defending ourselves. Work with our allies to bring terrorists to justice--real American-style justice."

I'm not exactly sure what David has in mind, since we can't allow the government to usurp personal liberties while improving and defending, and it is small groups of infiltrators we are talking about here. I'm not sure what work we will do with our allies that will fend off terror, but with President Kerry at least we will be firm in our civilized approach to proper terror fighting unlike "bring em on" Bush. Perhaps Kerry will invite them in for tea.

Well, in any case, here is what is going to happen:

Kerry is going to be elected (unless something we don't know about him nails him) for the same reason that Spain elected a new government--an group emotional reaction that can best be summed up as "stop the madness now". Life will settle into a kind of semi-pleasant American Dream repose for awhile as we take some comfort in our "diplomatic with liberty and justice for all" approach to terror. We will turn inwards, perhaps even get our deficit spending headed back in the right direction, come to terms with gay "marriage", and oh so many domestic issues--kind of like Queer Eye for the Domestic Guy. We'll have faith that our intelligence is detecting, controlling, and stopping terrorist's on our soil (with some hand wringing about liberties lost). The markets will go up. The Euro will go down.

We will mend fences with the U.N., will read believable news reports of how good a job the government's of the world are doing "taking care" of the terrorist situation, see pictures of leaders smiling and shaking hands. But all the while, let's not forget, we are still the enemy of Islam. Nothing much will happen on the terror front during this time because we as a nation are quiescent and generally non-threatening. The Saddams of the world will proceed unmolested to consolidate their territorial claims. Mass graves will not be known about for the most part, because sovereignty is respected. Shredding machine exports will increase.

Our enemies will be pleased, as during this time the technological pipeline will be quietly supplying them with the REALLY destructive firepower needed to wage the kind of battle needed to convert us - to make believers out of us, or to get rid of us. Haven't they made that perfectly clear?

During the 8 years of "new speak" diplomacy, new terrorist groups will be trained and new technology will be acquired by the believers. No longer will it be necessary--though still useful, however--to use airplane bombs or even shoot down airplanes to create terror. When the time is right--likely when the next republican is elected--a nuclear blast will level a large U.S. or European city. Perhaps it will have come from Korea, China, Pakistan, or even in parts, from the U.S or Germany or France. We won't really know until after the fact because our belief in intelligence had not been taken seriously since the war in Iraq--no politician wants to be accused of lying. We will enter a new phase of this conflict. I'm sorry but I'm not sure what happens after that. The crystal ball has gone dark.

Ladies and Gentleman, I hope you are right and I am wrong. I really do.

C

Spanish Freakout:

David wrote:

"After the terrorist attack in Spain that country's electorate shifted dramatically away from the conservative government's pro-war stance and elected a socialist government that vows to pull Spain's troops out of Iraq immediately upon taking power. This is the first "coalition of the willing" government to be ousted. Both the presidency and the parliamentary majority were lost by the conservatives."

Response, starting with DW quotes:

"There is no ambiguity in what has happened in Spain. The rotten heart of Europe has been exposed. The best comparison one can make is to Europe in 1940, when the entire continent had capitulated to Nazism and fascism, leaving Britain alone to fight. It thus came to be known as "Churchill's war", rather than "Hitler's war", only to revert when the Allies had won it, and a generation of Europeans, who had not lifted a finger, decided retrospectively that they had been in the Resistance."

and

"One must not, under the present circumstances, sound an uncertain trumpet. All men of goodwill, regardless of nation, are fighting the Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we fought the Nazis in Italy and France; and if the Americans must fight them alone, so be it. Then as now we made a lot of blather about "democracy". But screw democracy, we are fighting an enemy of civilization, an embodiment of real evil. There is no compromise with such an enemy, no capitulation to him, no way to avoid casualties, no easy way out. We defeat him, or he defeats us."

"We do not retreat because our allies are cowards. We continue to fight, for ourselves, for our children, and for their children."

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Mar04/index205.shtml

I couldn't have said it better myself. And we know that this political turn around is not about Spain's conservative party's support of Bush in Iraq, because Al Qaeda was not in Iraq - right? But it appears Al Qaeda had a hand if not THE hand in the Spain bombings. Sheesh. Call the U.N. so they can make another resolution!

Concientious Objection:

David wrote:
"The war also had it's first conscientious objector today from within the ranks of the US military. Staff Sgt. Camilo Meijia has refused to return to Iraq and has turned himself in to military authorities. In a news conference he stated "I went to Iraq and was an instrument of violence and now I have decided to become an instrument of peace." Apparently the turning point for him was an ambush he became involved in recently that injured or killed a group of innocent civilians. The civilian death toll on this one-year anniversary of the war just topped 10,000, according to IBC (link)."

I will always support individuals who make a conscientious stand under difficult conditions, as readers of my rant's well know. Hurray for Sgt. Camilo Meijia! This is the hardest thing in the world to do as an individual. But this is the kind of action - personal action - that changes the world. It's interesting to note that during Vietnam, such a stance rarely merited a news report but that today, no doubt because of a lockstep press seeking leverage, any leverage, to defeat Bush, it is national news. But I know much about this issue and it goes much deeper than "the war in Iraq is wrong". May the Sgt. live long and reflect on his personal decision - I applaud his individualism.

Clint

I am 'nothing' without good old cunundrums. Tao wrote of the Buddhist approach to reality but I couldn't help but be inspired by what it would mean to turn the whole thing around. -C

>Let’s look at some of the basics of Buddhism. (Tao)

Let's look at an alternative view of Buddhism. (Clint)

>1. Nirvana is the ultimate state = nothingness
We must learn to let go of this world and recognize the impermanence of all things. All material things break-down, wear out, or deteriorate. Therefore, because nothing is permanent, it is that nothing which is reality.

1(cl). Somethingness is the ultimate state = Anavrin
We must learn to grab hold of this world and recognize the rebirth of all things. All material things break-down, wear out, or deteriorate, but things are reborn. Therefore, they are the mother of nothingness and without the rebirth of somethingness, nothingness could not exist. Therefore, somethingness is the ultimate state.

>2. Salvation is one's self and one's works
I need not look to another’s actions for my own salvation. Salvation is in my perception and comes through my own works. One must change their perception to see a sense of ultimate truth, that truth is that there is nothing that we need salvation from except for ourselves.

2(cl). Salvation is the light from which nothingness drinks
By joining with others in perception, and through our combined creation, we enable somethingness, without which nothingness would have no meaning or place. One must change their perception to see a sense of ultimate truth, that truth is that there is something that we create together that causes nothingness.

>3. There is no hell in the biblical sense
In a sense we are already in hell. We must change our perception to ascertain nirvana and thus be free from suffering (i.e. hell). I am not punished if I do not strive for betterment, I am simply not rewarded.

3(cl). There is heaven in the biblical sense
In a sense we are already in heaven. We must change our perception to ascertain Anavrin and thus be bound by happiness (i.e. heaven). I am rewarded if I strive for betterment, and nothingness must attend the birth of my striving to provide a backdrop for the reward.

>4. Impersonal force (i.e. the Tao), no God
There is no God, the idea of God is itself an attachment and attachments will lead to suffering.

4(cl). Personal force (i.e. the Oat), God
There is a God, the idea of God is the recognition of symbiosis between nothingness and somethingness. Attachments will lead to both joy and suffering. It can not be otherwise if you wish to know joy. And joy is the mother of nothingness and is also nothingness's offspring.

>5. No moral absolutes
Moral Relativity. See my Dialogue with Idahogirl if you want more on this.

5(cl). Moral absolutes
Morality exists. Beauty exists. How could it be otherwise? Nothingness is indebted.

>6. World is an illusion
As I said before, the only reality is that there is nothing. Everything we see is an illusion in the minds eye, which is brought to life through our perception.

6(cl). World is a reality
As I said before, the only reality is that there is something. Everything we see is what we see in the minds eye, which is brought to life through our perception out of nothingness.

>7. Ignorance is the problem
There is no sin just ignorance.

7(cl) Enlightenment is the solution
There is no sin in enlightenment nor in ignorance. Ignorance is nothingness, and enlightenment pushes into nothingness.

>8. Desire needs to be eliminated
Desire leads to suffering. If we have desires and those desires are not met, then we will ultimately suffer and be let down.

8(cl). Desire needs to be increased
Desire leads to joy and creativity, the partner of nothingness. If we have desires and those desires are met, we will ultimately know joy and be lifted up. The partnership of nothingness is enhanced.

C