Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:10:48 EDT
Subject: Re: PKF: Walking On


In a message dated 7/26/98 7:34:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patters-AT-clnet.cz
writes:

> Again, precisely. If I may tie in a real-life example: 1)real-life example:
Irony as a 
> distinguising tool. Cite UNHCR and critical irony against its policy of
hypocricy with the 
> Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong as of August 1996. Have they all been
deported yet? > I haven't fit the ontology in here, but I have fit in an
ironic stance toward something to find > my way in the world. But a fine
example here of a body (UNHCR) which outwardly 
> preaches Unity, and in fact in some cases practices let's say Schadenfreude.
Seems a 
> rather Gentile phenomenon.

It would be better and clearer to simplify the terms of your equations. One of
the less attractive elements of the neo-liberal ethos is its apparent ability
to ingest logical contradictions and - all at the same time - to ignore the
consequences. If that's what you refer to as "schadenfreude", I make no
apologies. I have little to no sympathy for people who want to have their cake
and eat it, too.

This cancer of the human intellect is starting to infect the vital organs now.
My example: read the editorial by E.J. Dionne on what is coming to be called
the "Third Way" (i.e. between laissez fair capitalism and Marxism). Now, I
grew up with a concept called "social democracy" which espoused an economic
doctrine called the "mixed economy". We were taught that the "mixed economy"
was pretty much the standard of Western political economies, and I had no
trouble absorbing that reality.

So now, some of the same people who were fairly well known standard bearers
for social democracy in the 60s and 70s have latched on to this thing called
the "third way". I am not convinced that the Third Way differs in any
appreciable way from the "mixed economy" of the social democrats, and I really
think that the only decision one need have to make is whether one wishes to be
a social democrat or not. If the "Third Way" is nothing more or less than what
is taught, and has always been taught at the London School of Economics, what
need have we to look further in order to understand this genre ?

This kind of pouring of old conceptual wine into new rhetorical wineskins has
been the plague on the intellectual ethos of the 1990s. I wish these guys had
stuck to their knitting, and allowed things to take their course, as will
ultimately be the case, regardless of what they or we say and do. I regret
that Feyerabend and others aided and abetted this fundamental dishonesty, but
giving them the tools to shift their terms whenever things got a little tight
in terms of campaign contributions or votes. if their original visions of
utopia were good enough, why not stick by them ?

It is the same thing where human rights are concerned. If you have a doctrine
that insists that reasons of state or the rule of law takes precedence over
the concerns, liberties, and interests of individuals, then it is essential
for you to be honest enough to own up to that position. If you don't have the
strength of will or character to see it done that no one gets hurt, when you
have the most power of anyone to prevent these things from happening, how are
you going to expect anyone else - people who do not have such power - to carry
the water for you. I have been watching the evolution of the ICC treaty this
summer with bemusement. Now that Saddam Hussein is back up to his old tricks
again, what are you going to say to the American F-117 pilot that you've
tasked to bomb Baghdad:

"We want you to bomb this target in Baghdad tonight. Now, there is an x
percent probability that you'll hit your target, and given that you hit that
target right on the money, there is a y percent probability that you'll kill
some civilians in the process. Now, given those probabilities, there is a z
percent probability that Saddam and his diplomatic allies are going to raise a
complaint to the International Criminal Court that accuses you of violating
the Hague convention. If that does happen, there is an a percent probability
that the ICC will accept the case, a b percent probability that we'll resist
extradition in the face of international law, and a c percent probability that
you'll be acquitted. Keep in mind that you are taking this risk in the
interest of saving civilization from the perils of the unregulated spread of
weapons of mass destruction."

Now, as contrived as this scenario may seem, it does reflect the complications
resident in the international system as it is currently ordered. While absurd,
it is not fiction. What is absurd is the law of unintended consequences which
forces countries that may contemplate resort to the force of arms to escalate
their ends and means beyond the level of limited pinprick attacks in favor of
total war, so as to ensure that any armed action, no matter how slight, may
not be challenged by an international court that has extended its jurisdiction
onto every man, woman, and child on the planet. This state of affairs may be
ironic, but was brought to actuality by persons who so lacked a sense of irony
that the unintended consequences were either lost on them, or they simply did
not care what actualities got in the way of achieving their agendas. I would
think that people who still went around calling themselves social democrats
would know better.

Bill R.
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu