Help for texas
Locked
Re: Pacifism: was Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas
 
|
Steve,
A pacifist, when confronted with a person that physically coerces another, will only exercise non-violent, indirect, remedies to stop that. Yes? And typically, the state has exclusive use of violence, so if a state goes off the rails, there may not be
any remedy without that some consensus. The possibility that an individual will violate the the law or behave in an `anti-social' way and "presume to know what their context and choices are better than they do" may be all that prevents the accumulation of
power by dangerous individuals. It seems like you are equating violence with having the courage of ones' convictions.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:45:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Pacifism: was Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas Marcus - I can only answer this for myself. To the extent I am pacifistic, and identify with pacifism as a principle, I will state my own position/experience: While I do value consequences, I value intentions yet more, there has been a lot of ambiguity and ambivalence in my life because of this duality.
Personal Choice: For me, pacifism is a personal choice and it is about who I choose to be/come. I can offer advice and opinions to others about their own personal choices, about where their line between violence/non might be and what to do with
it, but I don't presume to know what their context and choices are better than they do... to do so would be it's own form of violence.
Vegetarianism: At 14 I chose not to eat any meat from any animal I did not kill or butcher myself. This made me a vegetarian as a matter of practice. I held that line for nearly 20 years. I am no longer a strict vegetarian, but am very sympathetic
with the ideals of those who choose it on moral grounds, and even moreso those who choose vegan lifestyles. I may return there. I considered this my first significantly pacifistic decision in life. War: I chose (but was relieved of acting on it) to refuse military service to my country and was prepared to leave it and never return to it as I came of 'conscription age'. This was neither because I was a coward (though the reality of war WAS
deeply threatening) nor because I believed the Vietnam War to be patently *wrong* (though there were plenty of indicators and I think time proved them correct for the most part). I simply did not want to become a killer, especially one who killed on the orders
of others, or put himself in a situation of kill-or-be-killed for arbitrary reasons. War Profiteeting: I also *chose* to work at a nuclear weapons laboratory (eventually) in support of MAD and came close to working for the more conventional Military-Industrials, because I believed that "somebody has to have the big stick, it might
as well be 'us' ". I also liked the pay, the benefits and the presumed prestige. But I never adopted a hawkish stance and took no more than passing *technical* pride in the products of my efforts, many of which were far from exclusively or even mainly military
in application. The fall of The Wall/Soviet Union helped me understand that MAD may always have been truly unnecessary (ill conceived?) madness, and a few choice words of Wisdom by the Dali Lama soon after, about the nature of violence/non helped me understand
all of that a little more. Some time supporting the National Intelligence effort helped me appreciate how slippery the slopes were and how much *I* didn't want to tread anywhere near that line of no return. Fortunately I ducked the "Edward Snowden" bullet,
I saw plenty I didn't like, but nothing beyond the pale. Spare the Rod: I chose to raise my children without giving over to the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality handed down by my parent's generation and held by more than a few peers. I never struck nor threatened to strike my children, nor used
abusive language toward them. I recognized that the violences I DID perpetrate (witholding of approval, of resources, timeout/grounding) were acknowledgements of my own failure to guide/support them well enough and/or a failure in my own patience. As far
as I know, this worked out very well with them. They might tell their intimates (or therapists) otherwise. Capital Punishment: Your point about capital punishment is well taken and I align with it for the most part. I'm not willing to be a party to state-sponsored vengeance. I accept that individuals DO take vengeance and accept that as part of "the
human condition" and can imagine my own participation. I accept that sometimes organizations (e.g. states) choose practical over ideological decisions (capital punishment as a way to avoid the expense and inconvenience of lifetime incarceration) but seek
other alternatives. War Again: Similarly, I don't like nor endorse the violence of war but accept that sometimes it is a point that groups arrive at, but I will not be party to the "vengeance" part of it. Vilifying the enemy only makes war "easier", it doesn't make it "better". True "self defense" is a practical admission of failure of all other means, and nothing to be proud of, merely to be exercised as effectively, thoughtfully and compassionately as possible. Sadly I find very little of this in those who promote the death penalty nor war. I hope there are truly "compassionate warriors" and suspect that some of my friends who have "been there" may have a significant component of that in them, it is not something easy for them to talk about and I respect that. Peace Out Man... - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
"It loops back on our conversation about bringing tasers to protests [..]"
Apologies in advance, but in today's article in the New York times about electric eels led me to a bit of poking around to find another research group. They write:
"Using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technologies, Gallant’s team will be able to generate mutant lines of transgenic electric fish as well.
"
http://efish.zoology.msu.edu/publications/
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/15m-nsf-grant-to-explore-secrets-of-electric-fish-genome/
So there you go, don't worry about carrying that taser, someday it can be genetically engineered into an arm (or tail?). If nothing else, an idea for a new series on Hulu.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of gⅼеɳ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:51:18 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas I found this essay interesting:
Why the Greatest Advocates of Nonviolence Didn't Condemn Anti-Racist, Anti-Fascist Acts of Violence http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41902-why-the-greatest-advocates-of-nonviolence-didn-t-condemn-anti-racist-anti-fascist-acts-of-violence It loops back on our conversation about bringing tasers to protests as well as my question to Merle about Hinduism vs. Buddhism and "Dharma himsa tathaiva cha", or violence in the service of Dharma. Being of an "interactivist" bent, I don't believe one can understand anything without manipulating it. The objective observer is a convenient fiction. This came up quite a bit in relation to the recent "March for Science". Should scientists really be marching? What are they marching for? It's also relevant for politics, this tendency for people to call themselves "apolitical" or to say they don't like or pay attention to politics. Personally, I think everyone is political, though they may lie to themselves and believe they're not. That's why I take the opportunity, at every chance, to talk about both religion and politics ... especially when someone proscribes it. I was playing horse shoes at the neighborhood picnic with a stranger and I made some comment about our Liar-in-Chief Trump. He said something like "Uh-oh, you just said something political." So, I took the opportunity to tell him that I don't believe in God, either. 8^) And he told me his wife is an atheist! It's rare a thing to get a non-atheist to admit they're married to an atheist. The trick is to make it clear that Everything is permitted. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law. >8^D But don't complain when you get punched for, say, acting like a Nazi. On 09/10/2017 01:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > As far as out driving our headlights, yes please. That's all there is, in the end: Figuring stuff out. Everything else is just marking time. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |