Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:48:16 +1000
Subject: Re: Ethics Again


Steve/All,

Whether understanding the terrorist violence of Bin Laden means approval,
i.e. Sartre would have agreed with Bin-Laden objectives, or disapproval
(U.S. disapproves) only Bin Laden knows what those objectives are.

As of now, his demise seems imminent, and Saddam Hussein may well be the
next target of U.S. forces.

The 60 country network Bin Laden will leave behind will inherit the task of
destroying the United States, and will no doubt  have the literary support
of Baudrillard and others.

Whatever Sartre might have said, whatever actions Deleuze, Guattari, Hardt,
Negri, Badiou and others of the living Pantheon of french philosophers
exhort their country and yours and mine and the rest of the world to take,
will likely produce as little effect as all their words of recent decades

regards,
Hugh.






> Hugh,
>
> The answer to the implicit critique of Baudrillard's 'cool' is yes.
>
> The Sartre of  Colonialism and Neo-colonialism would have understood the
> terroist violence of  Bin-Laden...
>
> regards
>
> steve
>
> hbone wrote:
>
> >To:  All
> >
> > Would Baudrillard have been so lofty and cool  had the terrorists
succeded
> > in destroying the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, and Notre Dame, with
incidental
> > deaths of  5000 Parisians.?
> >
> > Pertinent to the future of ethics in the U.S. is our President's recent
> >decision to circumvent constitutional justice with "kangaroo" military
> >courts.
> >
> > That action stimulated Wm. Safire to write an attack column in today's
> > NYTimes.
> >
> > Safire's article is worthy of nationwide distribution.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>