Iran: What a Patient Rug We Weave

Amir Taheri, former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper (who now lives in Europe), provides a frightening glimpse of Iran's long-term strategy. It includes:

• annihilating Israel "in one storm"

• launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government

• waiting out the term of George W. Bush, whom the Iranians regard as unusually belligerent -- most U.S. presidents, faced with challenges and setbacks, will "run away"

• pretending to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment and hypocritically signing additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (thus deterring sanctions)

There's more:

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations. [ . . . ]

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. [ . . . ] Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. [ . . . ]

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.

Before announcing each major move, Ahmadinejad has gone into "khalvat," or communion with the Hidden Imam, the messianic figure of Shi'a Islam.

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest . . .

Let's see. The 12th Imam gave Ahmadinejad the presidency of Iran, while God gave GWB the U.S. presidency? Will we see another terrorist attack, followed by conservative calls for repeal of the 22nd Amendment? (Truly, this is a planet of madmen.) Taheri:

From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. [ . . . ]

"The Americans are impatient," [says Ahmadinejad's adviser, Hassan Abassi], "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

(Hat tip: Real Clear Politics)

Comments

[Tom Strong]

And then there's this, in the New York Times no less.

There's obviously a tremendous amount of theater to all this - one might think that if they wanted to really start an all-out war, they wouldn't be so transparently public about every little thing.

But that said, I have no idea what we should actually do.

[realpc]

If they are holding off until Bush is gone, doesn't that suggest the strategy of toughness has been effective? Isn't it possible that military strength is the only way to reason with Muslim extremists?

I'm asking this because leftist Democrats are so angry at the Bush administration for making a mess out of everything. But is it possible the mess could have been worse under a Democrat?

Of course, we can't know. If the next president is a Democrat and things go haywire, they can still blame the Republicans. It is never possible to know the real causes of complex world events and people read everything according to their preferred ideologies.

But there is a possibility that invading Iraq made some kind of sense, considering this particular enemy, and that Bush has actually protected us from terrorism since 9/11. Of course, he didn't protect us from natural disasters very well (would a Democrat have done better?)

We just can't know be certain about any of this, and even a hundred years from now it may be impossible to sort out. I understand why the president's ratings are so low -- everyone hates a losing war. If by some miracle we actually start to win, his ratings will improve. Of course, the anti-war movement can prevent us from winning.

One more question -- why the heck are we losing the war? I thought we were supposed to be so great.

[Michael Reynolds]

The usual tired stuff we hear from every wingnut who wants to take on the US. We heard the same from the Nazis, the Japanese, the communists. They're committed, we're decadent, they're patient, we're immature, blah blah blah.

Someone ought to explain to the Iranians that wars stopped being about numbers of men under arms a long, long time ago. The Brits ruled half the world with a handful of men. Weapons technology, strategy, tactics, social cohesion all matter -- numbers of young men? Not so much.

Bottom line: if we get really pissed off every man, woman and child in Iran can be turned into radioactive dust in less than an hour's time. See how many rugs they weave then.

[realpc]

"Weapons technology, strategy, tactics, social cohesion all matter"

Ok, then we should have won in Iraq by now. What the heck is our problem?

[amba]

We do have to be very tough. But not crazy. it's a fine, fine line to walk. I'm now thinking we'd have been better off dealing with Iran if we hadn't invaded Iraq (or had done the aftermath better).

[realpc]

But maybe if we had done the aftermath better in Iraq we would be better off now than if we never invaded Iraq, with respect to Iran. I think maybe that was their reasoning. But why didn't they plan for this aftermath? Was it over-confidence? If you believe the Democrats, it was incompetence -- but that makes no sense.
The Bush administration must have known Iraq was made up of warring factions forced together. Everyone knew that, and everyone expected a fiasco.

[realpc]

What I'm trying to say is -- it's so baffling. Nothing I have seen or heard so far explains how this happened.

[meade]

Michael's comment reminded me of this:

"Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough."
VDH

[meade]

Or this:
"Look, I just don't get this stuff. I don't want Iran to have nukes. I don't think that's a good thing for the world. I certainly didn't want Pakistan or India to have nukes. But is a nuclear Iran really a threat to us? Certainly an Iran-with-nukes could blow the hell out of a city or two, but an Iran that did such a thing would pretty much cease to exist. It isn't mutually assured destruction, it's you fuck with us a little bit and YOU NO LONGER LIVE BITCHES!"
ATRIOS

[Michael Reynolds]

RealPC:

We failed in strategy and tactics. It was absolutely incompetence.

We have more than sufficient power to occupy and subdue Iraq, or Iran, for that matter. We occupied most of Germany, most of Austria, Italy and all of Japan simultaneoulsy, while feeding Britain and rebuilding most of Europe. All at a time when we had half the population and nothing close to the wealth we have today.

Not since Rome at its peak has such disproportionate power been held by one nation.
We had far more power and wealth than we needed to do Iraq -- if we had chosen to use that power and wealth. We tried to do it on a budget -- that was incompetence and ideology at work.

[AmbivaBro]

Doesn't anybody feel as though we're already at war with Iran? They're training, arming and providing most of the insurgents, after all, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. They're already engaged in the "slow but prolonged war" of which they speak.

[Tom Strong]

I think we'd have been better off if we hadn't spent the past 50 years supporting Sunni dictators in regions dominated by Shia.

Seriously, I think Bush deserves some credit for throwing out the old paradigms of interference in the Middle East. Problem is, what he's replaced it with - a lot of hot air, good intentions, and bad policies - is looking worse and worse.

I think it may be salvageable. But it will take another president to salvage it - one with the ability to talk to both sides of the aisle, and who can project both strength and genuine good will. It will also take a lot of time - far more than anyone wants to admit.

[Tom Strong]

Ambivabro,

Dude.

That's so horribly true.

[realpc]

"We failed in strategy and tactics. It was absolutely incompetence."

Michael,

We also failed in Vietnam, and I never heard that blamed on incompetence. I don't think the trouble in Iraq is incompetence, since Bush has access to all the best military experts. Maybe they had unrealistic expectations about Iraqis.

[Tom Strong]

meade,

It is incredibly weird to see Victor Davis Hanson and Atrios expressing such breathtakingly similar sentiments.

[meade]

Tom,

Yes... along with the magnificent mighty middle Michael, no?

[Michael Reynolds]

RealPC:

I have access to all the best financial advice -- I still lose money on investments. I am an incompetent investor. (Fortunately I'm a good earner.)

The fact that Mr. Bush has access to experts only buttresses the claim of incompetence. In fact he had all sorts of experts and managed to ignore all the ones who knew what they were talking about, and listen to all the ones who proved to be wrong. A big part of his job is to figure out which experts and policymakers to trust, and which to doubt. He chose wrong. He is, by definition, incompetent at this very important task.

As for Vietnam, actually a lot of people claim it was incompetence. Plenty of people warned us off - including the French - and we ignored them, choosing instead to listen to people who knew precisely nothing. I don't personally say that war was primarily a question of competence, but it was certainly an element.

In fact, incompetence has quite a history in politics and in war. A lot of people aren't very good at their job. That's just a fact of life.

[realpc]

Michael,

It's probably the hardest job there is, and none of us have tried it. One problem with democracy is we can end up with presidents who have no experience with war or international politics -- the most crucial aspects of being president.

I think most Americans are now ready for a president with military experience. Now that I think about it, maybe it is incompetence. Why did we ever hope a guy with so little relevant experience could handle it? I remember thinking that at least he had plenty of experienced advisors -- but advice is easy to ignore.

[karen]

I have a very ignorant question that i hope you forgive- but... who exactly is saying that we are ~losing~ this war?

I totally agree w/Ambivabro- and i believe that this isn't all the fault of an ~incompetent~ President, but a faliure of 30+ years of ignoring the dire threat of Iran and maybe the ME as a whole.

It seems to me that W has been nothing if not a catalyst for many,many festering and serious problems that face our country- having been so ignored for so many years, i.e. immigration, S.S., health care, mis-constructed dykes; you name it. Yet, he, in trying to get focus on these issues, gets laughed at for being so incompetent (even i agree he is an awful ~speaker~.) That doesn't mean he can't communicate, i bet he's great w/out the camera in his face-maybe he's camera shy?

So, why are we losing this war? Because i think so much effort has been given to protecting the human national of Iraq that we have actually lost opportunities to end this war faster. It's no secret what i think of our media. They glorify the gore; it sells. IMhumbleO, they are not above twisting the truth if it hurts the President and i wonder why someone so ~ignorant~ is so hunted for his mealy hide?

How many lives are saved in Iraq? How many children are getting educated or immunized or fed due to our war; medical attention and things like wheelchairs and operations- as opposed to that under Saddam? I don't have those answers, i'm not pointing fingers or picking fights, but i know too many young men over there to think they are purposefully targeting innocents and ~losing~ this war. Also, i believe that the cutbacks from Clinton's watch in the military hurt our soldiers both in training and in numbers. He slacked off. He certainly was no military man, and you get what you inherit from the dude before you when you're President, right? We had to rely on our Guards to fight majorly in this war- my neighbor, for one. My brother's best friend, a fella i know that works for FSA (it's a farm agency!). One weekend a month/two weeks a year. Hey, even an ex-boyfriend of mine went overseas.

Who said this war was going to be easy? It's going to take so many years to rebuild and re-educate a people that have been literally starved of the truth of Freedom of individual thought. W/out being shot. Why are we losing this war? Come on, realpc!!! Democracy doesn't mean we get to set up the leaders of the country. It's an ideal. Two devils, or 200- it's gotta start somewhere. And, once those folk breathe free air- yeah, i'm a bleeding optimist.

[karen]

Amba, All Things Beautiful is thinking along the same lines as you in this topic you have chosen...

[realpc]

Karen,

It does seem as if we are losing this war. I don't really have an opinion on whether Bush is competent to lead a war or not. My overall opinion of him is actually pretty good and I don't think he's a bad speaker. I think he has been terribly unlucky and crises that could have hit Clinton somehow waited for Bush. Democrats blame Bush for global warming and hurricanes, as if it had not been coming on for centuries.

But as far as being happy for the Iraqis -- no it has not been worth it. There are miserable oppressed people all over the world. We are very lucky to live here, but we can't destroy ourselves with guilt. We are not capable of saving the world, or makiing the world just like us. I do not think we necessarily know what is best for others. God blessed us, for now, with prosperity. He could take it away at any time and give it to others who now are starving.

And even if we could make everyone like ourselves, that is an arrogant assumption that our way is the best. We are democratic and prosperous, but we also have many faults. Do we have an obligation to spread those faults over the entire planet? Now they're dying from starvation, but we could help them die from obesity. You can't win.

[karen]

So we were better off w/Saddam and should never have enter the war?

What of the reams of documents that have been found in Saddam's palaces? Translated and saying that Saddam was linked to Terrorism?

Another conspiracy? As for global warming- there was an article about the poles being more alike as opposed to different, which should stablize weather- not cause the turmoil we have now. I used to be able to send these articles to myself or folks (ask amba LOL), but they now need a verification of password and- i admit i haven't figured that out yet. It's written by a scientist that says Al Gore was trying to get him to change his position because it didn't jive w/Gore's.

I also heard the reason the Earth is warmer is because the air is cleaner, allowing more sun to hit the Earth's surface. Which isn't what global warming is based on...

I sometimes wish we'd get a Dem in office, out of absolute spite. They can bear the burden of these Islamomaniacs and their nuclear ambitions- have them over for tea or something.

[meade]

The war in Iraq is not being lost. The mission, in fact, was accomplished: a psychotic belligerent regime was changed; weapons inspections were allowed to go forward. The Iraqi people (and others) were freed of being terrorized by their own government.

Altered by the murderous attacks of Sept. 11, George W. Bush is the first American president to draw a clear line in the "holy war" which islamists launched against western civilization decades prior to his taking office. He will no longer be president when the global war of terror comes to an end and successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, with flaws of their own, may be more or less competent than Bush. But it will be this nation's good fortune, and the good fortune of the world, to find future leaders who are equally unwilling to lose to Islamist jihad.

[Michael Reynolds]

Meade:
The mission was not the removal of Saddam. That was never the stated mission. The mission was to secure WMD, and to establish a stable democratic Iraq. The WMD mission proved irrelevant, and the stable, democratic mission does not seem to be working out.

Find me a single example where the president says our mission was solely the removal of Saddam. Our mission, as he has stated on literally hundreds of occasions, was to bring freedom and democracy and stability.

It is also factually incorrect to suggest that Iraqis are somehow no longer being victimized. Where once they were subject to Saddam's evil whims they are now subject to terrorist attack, militia attacks and ethnic cleansing. There are growing refugee camps in Iraq today fueled by fears of ethnic cleansing. Women in the south are being forced back to the burqa, pro-westrn Iraqi are being terrorized by Taliban-style Shiite thugs.

We went in to establish an example of a stable, prosperous, pro-western democracy for the rest of the region to follow. What we got was an insurgency, a possible civil war, political stalemate, religious oppression, and a terrific opportunity for Iran to expand its malignant influence.

To imagine that this qualifies as a success is bizarre.

[meade]

Michael:
I did not suggest that the Iraqi people are no longer being victimized. I said they are no longer being terrorized by their own government.

We went in to overthrow Saddam and his national socialist stalinist regime. We succeeded. I never said that our mission was solely the removal of Saddam and neither did George Bush. For that, one would need to go back to 1998 and read President Clinton's rationale for Operation Desert Fox.

Yes, there is, currently, an insurgency, the possibility of civil war, political stalemate, and the oppression of religious fanaticism. (Some might think we're describing blue/red America.)

What qualifies as bizarre is the notion that all has been lost.

[eustochius]

Karen,

To me I think it's unclear whether we are winning or not, but if we just give up, then we've certainly lost.

RealPC,

I'm sorry, but you always seem to confidently express very flakey views. Your comments always seem infused with a bizarre admixture of lazy thinking, muted and perhaps recovering angry conservatism [the leftists this and the leftists that], pessimism and fatalism [oh, why bother doing anything at all -- nothing ever gets better or worse, it all just stays the same] cross-bred with another hideous beast born of religious fundamentalism and spacey new-agery all of which conspires to form an anti-science platform.

For example:

You said:

It does seem as if we are losing this war. I don't really have an opinion on whether Bush is competent to lead a war or not. [laziness compounded with pessimism] My overall opinion of him is actually pretty good and I don't think he's a bad speaker. [bizzare and uncritical thinking -- sure he's given good speeches, but extemporaneously???]I think he has been terribly unlucky and crises that could have hit Clinton somehow waited for Bush. Democrats blame Bush for global warming and hurricanes, as if it had not been coming on for centuries. [perhaps some merit, but still a shade of muted angry conservatism and a touch of fatalism]

But as far as being happy for the Iraqis -- no it has not been worth it. There are miserable oppressed people all over the world. We are very lucky to live here, but we can't destroy ourselves with guilt. We are not capable of saving the world, or makiing the world just like us. I do not think we necessarily know what is best for others. God blessed us, for now, with prosperity. He could take it away at any time and give it to others who now are starving. [lazy, pessimistic, fatalism with a dash of religious fundamentalism. It's easy to refute. With your reasoning, we would never help anyone anywhere. If we can't save the world, why bother helping anyone. Tyranny? Hey, I'm sure some people like it. And obviously the world's only superpower surely couldn't do anything about it anyway. And even if it could, well, we'd just be corrupting them with our food, our freedom of speech, multiculturalism, and high standard of living.]

And even if we could make everyone like ourselves, that is an arrogant assumption that our way is the best. We are democratic and prosperous, but we also have many faults. Do we have an obligation to spread those faults over the entire planet? Now they're dying from starvation, but we could help them die from obesity. You can't win. [yeah, I know. If the first world and the developing world are so equivalent, why don't YOU move there and allow THEM to come here. I'm sure they'll be cursing you. Oh, in my home country, I was starving, but now I watch MTV and eat lots of food. Curse the Americans!]

I've never been this rude before to a commenter. But please, for the love of God, think more critically. You're always tossing out half-baked, poorly-examined ideas -- and what's worse -- you coat it in some weirdo armor, of oh what me, I don't know nuttin', well if so, don't much such overconfident statements about science, and leftists, secularist etc.

[BTW, in case you didn't know, that while liberal may be a dirty word, if you call someone a leftist, you're almost just saying they're a commie.]

What's worse, RealPC, is that I am actually moderate and open to alternative science. I'm no secularist leftist. It's mostly the uncritical thinking and pessimism which get to me. After I read your comments -- I think that's nice. Why don't I just crawl into a hole, throw away my technology, and realize that I don't know nuttin' and never will.

Have some optimism and some hope and some confidence in the dignity and progress of humanity fer chrissakes. And stop callin' everyone commies! :)

Again, if you think humanity has not made serious NET progress, I invite you to step into a time machine and enjoy your stay in the middle ages.

It's not that you're always wrong, RealPC, it's that you're usually half-right but then coat this kernel of wisdom with a bunch of ill-conceived monkey business. I know I'm not alone in this assessment. For I have seen many of the finest commenters here take you to task -- each of them basically expressing -- why are you so nuts? It would be one thing if you were nuts but your opinion evolved and shifted -- but pardon the expression -- you just seem "stuck on stupid."

Flexibility, optimism -- these are good things! Really. I know you can do it. And no, you don't have to agree with my or anyone else's positions. But let's have a little more critical reflection and evaluation.

[amba]

Eusto,

What an uncharacteristic fit of pique! Do you really want to be calling a fellow commenter "nuts" and "stupid"?

I had just been thinking how unique and kind of enjoyable, if also sometimes annoying, I find realpc's equal-opportunity cynicism. She (I think) sounds to me like someone who was fairly recently (within the last decade) hit by the realization that human nature is incurably mixed and self-justifying and idealism is futile. It's possible to be infatuated with futility for a while before figuring out that, like Don Quixote, you have to tilt at windmills anyway. The progress that has been made (which of course has come with its own unintended consequences -- trade starvation and TB for obesity, diabetes and cancer, e.g.) has come from people who've either been blind to futility (because they were very young) or have decided to try to do some good in spite of futility (because they were very old). realpc sounds right in between those two, like, maybe in her 30s? Just guessing.,

[realpc]

amba,

It's true I am an anti-utopian, but that does not necessarily lead to hopelessness. I am happy to be in this crazy world and don't feel I must have easy remedies for all its troubles.

I am over 50, female, and have been thinking holistically for about 30 years now. I feel that I can help the world in small ways even though I don't have simple answers to the big problems. I can't stop global warming, but I travel by bike instead of car whenever possible. I can understand things like Intelligent Design theory better than the average person, because I studied evolution and information theory, and all kinds of related subjects. I think scientific secularism is wrong, and the world needs people like us who can debate it intelligently. Being part of the creatively evolving universe is a cause for optimism, even if our little civilization is probably going to blow up.

We just don't know. I try to oppose the arrogant certainty that is so prevalent these days. Sure we're scared -- who wouldn't be? But I have faith in an intelligence infinitely greater than our own. In trying to help our world, anything we do has to be small. We need faith in something far greater than our little human brains.

[eusto]

Amba,

What an uncharacteristic fit of pique!

LOL! Amba, I CAN get ornery from time to time. I think the combination of being exposed to too much Mighty Middle and its celebration of "incoherent rage", combined with heavy sleep deprivation, a long-standing indecision regarding whether I should make known my consistent disagreements with RealPC, and my preference for direct language got the better of me.

Well, I did strive to make such adjectives either refer to her ideas or to be indirect attributions, not to be fundamental and unalterable aspects of her being.

I had just been thinking how unique and kind of enjoyable, if also sometimes annoying, I find realpc's equal-opportunity cynicism. She (I think) sounds to me like someone who was fairly recently (within the last decade) hit by the realization that human nature is incurably mixed and self-justifying and idealism is futile. It's possible to be infatuated with futility for a while before figuring out that, like Don Quixote, you have to tilt at windmills anyway. The progress that has been made (which of course has come with its own unintended consequences -- trade starvation and TB for obesity, diabetes and cancer, e.g.) has come from people who've either been blind to futility (because they were very young) or have decided to try to do some good in spite of futility (because they were very old). realpc sounds right in between those two, like, maybe in her 30s? Just guessing.,

Well, you know me amba. I tend to be mr. flake on a lot of issues, but I'm very much a staunch universal eventual Buddhahood type of guy. Meaning, I'm an unflinching advocate of the divinity of humanity, its essential unity with the good, and its eventual triumph over the bad. Because if you let that notion go, if you're a wuss on that issue, we have a quick collapse toward lower standards, needless depression, a falling away from the good, and -- if you take Buddhism seriously, and I'm agnostic on this point -- you'll be stuck on the wheel on rebirth in perpetuity making very little spiritual progress. If one does not even embrace the possibility of Buddhahood for oneself or relegates it to an ever-receding time, how can one arrive at the destination? How can one become self-realized?

Which is my major beef with monotheism. Low standards. Poor vision of human nature accompanied by perpetual self-deprecation and self-flagellation. It's a short, or at least easy, step from asserting that human nature is fundamentally mixed to an acceptance of the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of low expectations.

BUT, at the same time, I, of course, recognize that humans are capable of some serious evil and that -- until the Buddhic aspect is in firm control of the lower nature (metaphorically, say post-temptation for Jesus or Buddha), the normal, human outer-self needs a great deal of purification and indeed powerful external restraints -- laws, armies, etc. to keep it in check. So I understand that human nature is now mixed, but I consider goodness to be the core aspect of that nature -- that if nurtured, trained, and guided can regain its rightful place as sovereign over the self.

Until that time, the lower human nature of course needs to be disciplined for all bad behavior -- including "fits of pique" ;)

RealPC:

I do apologize for my venting. It is likely true that much of what I wrote was unfair or uncalled for. I hope I did not hurt your feelings. I'm sorry, but you must know that virtually every comment you make has driven me nuts in some fashion. Of course, this is just as much a comment on my psychology as it is yours.

I tend to place a high value on intellectual precision and nuanced statements. For instance, I love math and philosophy.

While, imo, I feel that there is often something to what you say, you seem to suffer, imo, from chronic overstatement. For instance, you might say that NO progress has been made or that scientists don't know ANYTHING or ALL leftists this or ALL secularists that.

It's true I am an anti-utopian, but that does not necessarily lead to hopelessness.

But don't you see, we need at least a modicum of expectation of progress, for without that expectation we lack the motivation for improvement. For instance, I have noted that one consistent thread running through Islam today is its fatalism. And fatalism is profoundly disempowering. The idea you cited above that "what the lord giveth, the lord can taketh away" has led to a degree of lack of planning for the future in Islamic society. If times are good, there is a sense that this is purely the result of the will of Allah, and vice versa. And there's no way you can base a successful modern country on this reasoning and lack of planning for the future.

I think a lot of America's success is based on our optimism -- is based on our naivete, and on our "protestant" work ethic, on our notion that "god helps those that help themselves." And it is a feature of America I embrace wholeheartedly. It is the sweet hope and joy of a child unsullied by the world. I tend to see history propelled by those with unflinching confidence and hope for the future -- the founding fathers and Churchill come to mind. Now, certainly utopianism unchecked by reality or compassion leads to serious problems -- as witness the various communistic movements of the 20th century, the French revolution, etc. It can be a dangerous brew, but even so, it is the very lifeblood of joy and of, yes, progress. Utopianism is great -- it just needs patience, love, and clear eyes.

And I do think it is clear, that, at least overall, humanity is making progress -- albeit of the two-steps-forwards one-step-backwards kind.

I am happy to be in this crazy world and don't feel I must have easy remedies for all its troubles.

True, but we ought do something, no? And if we are vested with great power, should we not at least consider how it may be deployed to help those less fortunate?

I think scientific secularism is wrong, and the world needs people like us who can debate it intelligently.

Well, and this is perhaps a fine point, but I tend to think that scientific seclularism is incomplete as opposed to just wrong. I agree that there are likely huge gaps in our knoweldge, gaps, that when filled, may completely alter our understanding of the universe. But at the same time, what we do understand is also huge and awesome. Even something as antiquated as Newtonian Mechanics is extremely powerful and lay bare to us things that were hitherto completely obscure.

I'm sure you've heard of Pope's little epitaph for Newton. "Nature and nature laws lay hid in night. God said, 'Let Newton be, and all was light.'" Quaint, but not entirely inaccurate. And my favorite from Einstein: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

even if our little civilization is probably going to blow up.

You know, one reason I had such a reaction, is that I felt kinda sorry for you. I imagine that it must be depressing if all one can muster is a limp, vague hope for the future. I hope that you have greater happiness and cause for optimism in your life.

I think amba once remarked that one could be "sadder but wiser." Heck no! (well, okay maybe sometimes.) I believe that those who are truly wise are filled with joy. The laughing Buddha and all.

I perceive so much goodness and so much nobility in the human spirit that I am troubled and saddened by your views. I too believe we need to have faith in something that transcends ourselves - only that once perceived we will grasp that we
ARE, in a deep sense, that source of goodness and wisdom. It is our true nature. Let us all embrace the "sat, cit, and ananda" (the being, awareness, and bliss) that lies at the heart of creation and of ourselves!

And I think if you actually take seriously the notion of the divine, as you seemingly do, one is obligated to embrace an eschatological vision of the triumph of the good. Otherwise, you're denying the efficacy, or the power, or the goodness of the divine.

If ever you are presented with a choice between hope and despair, choose hope! (gosh durn it!)

[eusto]

Italics fixed.

Amba,

What an uncharacteristic fit of pique!

LOL! Amba, I CAN get ornery from time to time. I think the combination of being exposed to too much Mighty Middle and its celebration of "incoherent rage", combined with heavy sleep deprivation, a long-standing indecision regarding whether I should make known my consistent disagreements with RealPC, and my preference for direct language got the better of me.

do you really think that you should be calling commenters stupid or nuts (paraphrasing)

Well, I did strive to make such adjectives either refer to her ideas or to be indirect attributions, not to be fundamental and unalterable aspects of her being.

I had just been thinking how unique and kind of enjoyable, if also sometimes annoying, I find realpc's equal-opportunity cynicism. She (I think) sounds to me like someone who was fairly recently (within the last decade) hit by the realization that human nature is incurably mixed and self-justifying and idealism is futile. It's possible to be infatuated with futility for a while before figuring out that, like Don Quixote, you have to tilt at windmills anyway. The progress that has been made (which of course has come with its own unintended consequences -- trade starvation and TB for obesity, diabetes and cancer, e.g.) has come from people who've either been blind to futility (because they were very young) or have decided to try to do some good in spite of futility (because they were very old). realpc sounds right in between those two, like, maybe in her 30s? Just guessing.,

Well, you know me amba. I tend to be mr. flake on a lot of issues, but I'm very much a staunch universal eventual Buddhahood type of guy. Meaning, I'm an unflinching advocate of the divinity of humanity, its essential unity with the good, and its eventual triumph over the bad. Because if you let that notion go, if you're a wuss on that issue, we have a quick collapse toward lower standards, needless depression, a falling away from the good, and -- if you take Buddhism seriously, and I'm agnostic on this point -- you'll be stuck on the wheel on rebirth in perpetuity making very little spiritual progress. If one does not even embrace the possibility of Buddhahood for oneself or relegates it to an ever-receding time, how can one arrive at the destination? How can one become self-realized?

Which is my major beef with monotheism. Low standards. Poor vision of human nature accompanied by perpetual self-deprecation and self-flagellation. It's a short, or at least easy, step from asserting that human nature is fundamentally mixed to an acceptance of the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of low expectations.

BUT, at the same time, I, of course, recognize that humans are capable of some serious evil and that -- until the Buddhic aspect is in firm control of the lower nature (metaphorically, say post-temptation for Jesus or Buddha), the normal, human outer-self needs a great deal of purification and indeed powerful external restraints -- laws, armies, etc. to keep it in check. So I understand that human nature is now mixed, but I consider goodness to be the core aspect of that nature -- that if nurtured, trained, and guided can regain its rightful place as sovereign over the self.

Until that time, the lower human nature of course needs to be disciplined for all bad behavior -- including "fits of pique" ;)

RealPC:

I do apologize for my venting. It is likely true that much of what I wrote was unfair or uncalled for. I hope I did not hurt your feelings. I'm sorry, but you must know that virtually every comment you make has driven me nuts in some fashion. Of course, this is just as much a comment on my psychology as it is yours.

I tend to place a high value on intellectual precision and nuanced statements. For instance, I love math and philosophy.

While, imo, I feel that there is often something to what you say, you seem to suffer, imo, from chronic overstatement. For instance, you might say that NO progress has been made or that scientists don't know ANYTHING or ALL leftists this or ALL secularists that.

It's true I am an anti-utopian, but that does not necessarily lead to hopelessness.

But don't you see, we need at least a modicum of expectation of progress, for without that expectation we lack the motivation for improvement. For instance, I have noted that one consistent thread running through Islam today is its fatalism. And fatalism is profoundly disempowering. The idea you cited above that "what the lord giveth, the lord can taketh away" has led to a degree of lack of planning for the future in Islamic society. If times are good, there is a sense that this is purely the result of the will of Allah, and vice versa. And there's no way you can base a successful modern country on this reasoning and lack of planning for the future.

I think a lot of America's success is based on our optimism -- is based on our naivete, and on our "protestant" work ethic, on our notion that "god helps those that help themselves." And it is a feature of America I embrace wholeheartedly. It is the sweet hope and joy of a child unsullied by the world. I tend to see history propelled by those with unflinching confidence and hope for the future -- the founding fathers and Churchill come to mind. Now, certainly utopianism unchecked by reality or compassion leads to serious problems -- as witness the various communistic movements of the 20th century, the French revolution, etc. It can be a dangerous brew, but even so, it is the very lifeblood of joy and of, yes, progress. Utopianism is great -- it just needs patience, love, and clear eyes.

And I do think it is clear, that, at least overall, humanity is making progress -- albeit of the two-steps-forwards one-step-backwards kind.

I am happy to be in this crazy world and don't feel I must have easy remedies for all its troubles.

True, but we ought do something, no? And if we are vested with great power, should we not at least consider how it may be deployed to help those less fortunate?

I think scientific secularism is wrong, and the world needs people like us who can debate it intelligently.

Well, and this is perhaps a fine point, but I tend to think that scientific seclularism is incomplete as opposed to just wrong. I agree that there are likely huge gaps in our knoweldge, gaps, that when filled, may completely alter our understanding of the universe. But at the same time, what we do understand is also huge and awesome. Even something as antiquated as Newtonian Mechanics is extremely powerful and lay bare to us things that were hitherto completely obscure.

I'm sure you've heard of Pope's little epitaph for Newton. "Nature and nature laws lay hid in night. God said, 'Let Newton be, and all was light.'" Quaint, but not entirely inaccurate. And my favorite from Einstein: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

even if our little civilization is probably going to blow up.

You know, one reason I had such a reaction, is that I felt kinda sorry for you. I imagine that it must be depressing if all one can muster is a limp, vague hope for the future. I hope that you have greater happiness and cause for optimism in your life.

I think amba once remarked that one could be "sadder but wiser." Heck no! (well, okay maybe sometimes.) I believe that those who are truly wise are filled with joy. The laughing Buddha and all.

I perceive so much goodness and so much nobility in the human spirit that I am troubled and saddened by your views. I too believe we need to have faith in something that transcends ourselves - only that once perceived we will grasp that we
ARE, in a deep sense, that source of goodness and wisdom. It is our true nature. Let us all embrace the "sat, cit, and ananda" (the being, awareness, and bliss) that lies at the heart of creation and of ourselves!

And I think if you actually take seriously the notion of the divine, as you seemingly do, one is obligated to embrace an eschatological vision of the triumph of the good. Otherwise, you're denying the efficacy, or the power, or the goodness of the divine.

If ever you are presented with a choice between hope and despair, choose hope! (gosh durn it!)

[eusto]

Argh! Well, it worked fine in preview, but I guess I couldn't undo what I had done above. Sorry for the triple post of the eusto.

[realpc]

"if you actually take seriously the notion of the divine ... one is obligated to embrace an eschatological vision of the triumph of the good."

eusto,

Because my opinions are so far from the typical American mythology, it may be impossible for you to understand me. I have trouble explaining myself in short easy to read posts.

You don't like what I have to say because you are a true believer. Even if you are not a leftist or a rightist, you can still be entranced by some aspect of the prevailing mythologies.

For one thing, you probably have never analyzed what you mean by "good" or "evil." It's assumed in your mythology, and not necessarily shared by all.

You justified expressing rage towards me -- and this is a very common thing nowdays -- because you are so sure of your rightness and of my wrongness. Since you don't know I'm a scientist -- it is not obvious since I don't worship progress -- you look down at me from an exalted height. This is extremely common nowdays, and as a supporter of Intelligent Design I am used to it.

The current mythology of the left is largely rooted in scientific pride. I have nothing against science. On the other hand, I am not a true believer in progress as salvation. Leftists and secularists get really pissed off when I say things like that.

You are not so different from Christians waiting for the second coming, or communists waiting for the workers' paradise, Buddhists waiting for Nirvana, Muslims waitiing for whatever they wait for. Your hopes for paradise are pinned on scientific progress.

Well I don't feel the same way. It's obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively that our worst problems are caused by technology. So how likely is it that technology will also be our savior?

Excuse me for being logical.

[karen]

Well, if you guys read this- i like you both for the reasons you state above, and am not like either of you. Logically, mytically- reality hits us that we are all different and all the same- and that it sucks. Humanity.

I really hope debates continue- eusto's heart and brain- realpc's brain and strength- we'd be lost w/out them!!!

[realpc]

Thanks Karen, I like you too. I wish we could end these italics, though. I hope this works.

[realpc]

Are there some instructions somewhere? The preview looked ok but here we are again, italicized.

[Eusto]

Real,

If you've never been to "incoherent rage" at Mighty Middle you wouldn't understand that it's "faux rage" done for humorous effect. It's very difficult to ascertain tone from a post. My original unbridled post was in humorous faux rage most of the time, with some variations thrown in.

Sorry for having gone at you like that -- but you know, everyone has those days. . . . I did like apologize four times., you know

On to the response:

Because my opinions are so far from the typical American mythology, it may be impossible for you to understand me. I have trouble explaining myself in short easy to read posts.

You should realize that throwing out terms like mythology are very abrasive and haughty. (as a lame excuse, for me, this probably in part provoked my unjustified abrasiveness.) Atheists use it to denigrate Christianity in a similar manner. And it comes off, at least to me, that you're saying that what most Americans believe -- which you don't really define -- is untrue. And that by extension -- YOU know the truth. Or at least, YOU know that most everyone is deluded. I can tolerate a few elitist arguments now and then -- and even indulge in them myself -- but you don't back up what you say.

You don't like what I have to say because you are a true believer. Even if you are not a leftist or a rightist, you can still be entranced by some aspect of the prevailing mythologies.

Again the use of the term mythology confers upon you some lofty all-knowing status. It's a genuine impediment to discourse.
Go ahead using leftist too if you want to purposelessly offend people.

For one thing, you probably have never analyzed what you mean by "good" or "evil."

False. In my view, the good is whatever promotes the greatest degree of joy and true flourishing for the individual and for all. It is distinct from pleasure. It is true that I am making a universalizing assumption -- that what is good for one is most often good for all. But if you don't make any assumptions like that, you just fall into moral relativism and can make neither heads nor tails of anything anymore. The study of the nature of the good is a branch of philosophy known as axiology, or value theory, and I'll probably be taking a graduate class in it soon. (Take that! ;)

You justified expressing rage towards me -- and this is a very common thing nowdays -- because you are so sure of your rightness and of my wrongness. Since you don't know I'm a scientist -- it is not obvious since I don't worship progress -- you look down at me from an exalted height.

I knew you had a PhD in cognitive linguistics. RealPC, you can throw around this stuff saying that I look down at you, but I made several serious critiques of your arguments that you have not bothered to refute. I'm not looking down on you because you have strange beliefs -- I have many myself -- I was frustrated because you very confidently and routinely condemn whole swaths of the population without using any nuance. You just back it up with, what at least appears to be, very sketchy arguments. And then if anyone disagrees with you -- well, it must be because they're true believers in the prevailing "mythology." Almost all of my favorite commenters here have called you to task on your sometimes flaky arguments at one point or another. And they're are all very diverse people running the spectrum of ideologies. So are we all deluded by the prevailing mythology?

I've told you that I reject materialism. I'm even open to some hypermystical version of intelligent design. But because I have hope for the future and believe it's best to think postive and because I think the United States, with all its wealth and power, should help the less fortunate, and because I think that medical technology has actually improved and because I think that society has made at least some significant progress since the Middle Ages, I'm still partly deluded by prevailing mythologies??? Huh?

The current mythology of the left is largely rooted in scientific pride. I have nothing against science. On the other hand, I am not a true believer in progress as salvation. Leftists and secularists get really pissed off when I say things like that.

I don't believe that scientific progress will be our salvation but I do think humanity will continue -- if unevenly -- to make moral, spiritual and scientific progress. And that our lives will be better in the future.

You are not so different from Christians waiting for the second coming, or communists waiting for the workers' paradise, Buddhists waiting for Nirvana, Muslims waitiing for whatever they wait for. Your hopes for paradise are pinned on scientific progress.

No they're not. Though I do agree that humanity will make progress and that scientific progress will be a part of it.

Well I don't feel the same way. It's obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively that our worst problems are caused by technology. So how likely is it that technology will also be our savior?

Again, you're imputing to me things that I don't believe. Furthermore, all technology involves tradeoffs. I don't dispute that. But I think it's a bit absurd to act as if technology has brought us no net benefit. In the middle ages, you would have been perpetually pregnant (unless you were a nun), half your children would die, and if you didn't die in childbirth, you could be hit by the black plague, or die of famine. Your life would likely be spent in perpetual backbraking labor and you would be illiterate and uneducated -- the scope of your understanding not even near the very limited scope of the learned elite of the age. Were some things better during the Middle Ages? Probably, but as I said before, I sincerely doubt that people would want to return to them. It's a clear fact that quality of life and life expentancy, not to mention personal freedoms for men and women, have dramtically increased since then. Sure it's possible we could be wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. But it's not that likely. It's also possible that we could have gone extinct in the Middle Ages with a different pattern of disease. Europe was decimated by the Black Death for instance.

Technology is both a blessing and a curse. It is true that SOME of our worst problems are due to technology -- say nuclear weapons and suicide vests -- but this same technology heals us, connects us, and gives us longer lives. While we may CHOOSE to sit on our butts and die of a heart attack, we have so many options we didn't have before.

My beefs with your arguments is that they just aren't true -- not in the extreme forms you express them in. And this truth is independent of whatever "mythology" one may have.

I think you need to let go of your knee-jerk dislike of secularists and "leftists." Sure some may think they know everything, but that's a very common thing. A lot of fundamentalist Christians feel certain about a lot of things too. And a fair number of Republicans are certain that liberals are just a bunch of traitorous American-hating weenies. Arrogance is all around us. You can't let that obscure the truth.

I have constantly pointed out our points of agreement. I have continually showed where I think you have a good point. Yet, from what I read, you never seem to make the same effort to point out what your opponent in argument has right. From your perspective, we're all just deluded leftists who have bought into a false mythology.

Excuse me for being logical.

But you're not being logical, and that is the problem. You constantly engage in vague ad hominem arguments. For instance above, you fail to recognize that technology can both solve and create problems and fail to recognize that the problem is not really technology, it's human's lack of understanding and compassion. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I believe that once we've overcome the Islamist threat and China and Russia move along, then we will move to a happier and more peaceful world. Remember that earlier in this century, Europe and Japan were havens for extremely violent tyranny and genocide. But I really don't see Europe or Japan reverting. And remember the massive communist threat, which has more or less disintegrated. The world truly is improving, and many times, it has improved because of America.

We may ecounter some real crazy sh*t till we reach that point, but I have confidence that we will.

RealPC: Look -- I'm not out to demean you. I don't just want to piss you off and put you on the defensive so that you'll just dismiss me as another deluded secularist. It just saddens me that you have so little faith in the goodness of man, in the goodness of America, in the goodness of our rights and freedoms. It saddens me that you don't feel that the West actually has moved further along than the rest of the world. I agree that we have problems and are too self-centered and libertine, but -- we're talking about democracy and freedom here.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine -- but if I'm following a mythology, so are you. If you would like to think that the world's just going to blow itself up, and we're going nowhere, that's your prerogative. But I certainly will oppose your muted low-grade dystopian vision wherever I can.

To sum up:
(1)I am sympathetic to the idea that many citizens have too great a faith in progress, and I am sympathetic to the idea that science doesn't have all the answers. So we actually agree somewhat closely. I just choose to emphasize and have faith in the good, and you do the reverse.

(2)So, my main beefs with you are
(a)your denigrating of wide-swaths of the population
(b)extreme statements that are poorly substantiated and
(c) your, imo, unjustified pessimism.

(3)I hate being mean. And I was mean. And I was wrong to be mean. But really just think about what I have written. I've indicated my points of agreement, and I've very carefully laid out my arguments. If I thought little of you, I wouldn't have bothered. So think about it, alright.

Truce???

[eusto]

The italics are my fault because typepad doesn't shut them off unless you close them. I thought the end of a post was sufficient. But I don't see them now anymore. So I'm not having the problems you guys (gals) are.

You'll vouch for me Karen won't you? I'm not always a jerk, right? Besides, amba said it was uncharacteristic of me, and although I was truly annoyed, I wasn't in a rage at all. I just like hyperbole and extravagence from time to time.

[amba]

OK, guys, I'll fix it! (It's like a disease . . . )

[amba]

CURED!

[amba]

Real -- I don't know if you were insulted or flattered by my thinking you might be in your 30s! Sorry/ you're welcome!

[realpc]

amba,

If you had guessed I was in my 30s based on seeing a photo, yes I would be flattered. But since it was based on the (perceived) immaturity of my ideas, well I admit I did feel a little insulted. But I have been insulted far worse at leftist blogs, as you can probably imagine.

It's possible you have misinterpreted some of my anti-utopian statements as cynicism. That is not my message. My message is, basically, that humans are not gods, although we may want to be. This does not mean we shouldn't try to improve our lives and our society. I like the ideas America was founded on -- distrust of government and human nature. The founders did not have a grand scheme, just a sensible and humble outline. They understood human weaknesses.

The political left has lost touch with most of that, because of scientific progress and certain theories of human nature.

[realpc]

Eusto,

I will try to carefully consider and answer each of your points.

Mythology -- I'm talking about morphic resonance. We can't help resonating with ideas we learn from respected authorities, or that just surround us in our communities. I am as vulnerable as anyone else. But having read and thought about Sheldrake makes it easier to notice how deeply and irrationally entranced we all can be.
It's human nature to be entranced by mythology, it's what holds communities together. But in our complex modern world we need at least some conscious awareness.

"Go ahead using leftist too if you want to purposelessly offend people."

"Leftist" is an abbreviation for a complex political category. I would rather not have to type 3 paragraphs every time I refer to the category. Sometimes I use the term "progressive" or "liberal," but they're to narrow. I can't use "anti-capitalist" because that only describes the radical Marxist left (sort of).
Anyway, if you have a better word I'll use it.

Good and evil:
" I am making a universalizing assumption -- that what is good for one is most often good for all."

Yeah, you are assuming a lot. Very often, what is good for one individual or group is bad for others. As a simple example -- people, generally, like to win competitions and overcome obstacles. That is a big cause of joy for most of us. And every time someone wins, others lose. The socialist dream of keeping everyone on the same level, if it ever succeeded, would remove a large amount of joy from life.
Even terrible suffering often leads to joy, in unpredictable ways. And too much fame and fortune, on the other hand, often results in boredom, addiction and depression.

We can't conceive of light without shadow or shadow without light. Goodness and badness are complex and relative concepts.

Technology:
" it's a bit absurd to act as if technology has brought us no net benefit."

We can't measure whether technology has done more harm or more good, and it depends on each person's perspective. I said technology has caused our worst problems, I never said it caused nothing but problems. There is no need to point out to me that technology has benefits. I think technology is the flower of our culture.

Arrogance:
"I think you need to let go of your knee-jerk dislike of secularists and "leftists." Sure some may think they know everything, but that's a very common thing. A lot of fundamentalist Christians feel certain about a lot of things too. And a fair number of Republicans are certain that liberals are just a bunch of traitorous American-hating weenies. Arrogance is all around us. "

Well yeah, that's what I said. Why does it bother you if I dislike arrogance. If it's a secular leftist or a narrow bigoted Christian or Republican, or whatever, I still don't like it. How does it obscure truth if I complain about arrogance?

"you fail to recognize that technology can both solve and create problems"

I didn't fail to recognize that. I might not have said it, but it's too obvious to say anyway.

"problem is not really technology, it's human's lack of understanding and compassion"

That's where I don't agree with you. We humans are as understanding as we can possibly be, given our small brains. And compassion is wired into all of us. Compassion is just as dangerous as anything else when it goes too far and gets out of control. The pro-life movement is partly fueled by malignant compassion. Marxism is hideously compassionate.

"I'm sure you'll disagree, but I believe that once we've overcome the Islamist threat and China and Russia move along, then we will move to a happier and more peaceful world."

It's anyone's guess. If the American "empire" conquers the world (economically, I mean), then we might have a peaceful era, for a while.

"The world truly is improving, and many times, it has improved because of America."

I think America is great, if you like certain things. I'm glad to be here because I love freedom. But I also miss the many things we have lost.

" It just saddens me that you have so little faith in the goodness of man, in the goodness of America, in the goodness of our rights and freedoms."

None of that is true about me. I think there is goodness in man and in America. That doesn't prevent there being badness also. The American founders had a healthy awareness of human weakness, and it's really important we don't forget that. Look at the terrible mistakes the neocons made in their plans for Iraq. They ignored the wisdom about human nature and fell for the leftist myth that humans are essentially good (whatever it is they mean by "good"). Marxism and some forms of liberalism and progressivism, all make that kind of mistake.

[eusto]

Thanks be to amba! Forgive me amba for I did not preview.

[the following is in a friendly tone, if any doubt there be]

I'm much more comfortable with your recent comment, RealPC, but I sincerely ask, why are you constantly blaming the left for everything? I mean that immediately creates the impression that you're an ornery conservative. A little equal opportunity criticism would be nice and certainly would go a long way to shoring up your moderate credentials -- if you are so inclined.

You probably don't know this, but if I am a leftist, I am a very bad one. Compared to many moderates, I'm more likely to give W the benefit of the doubt and am basically pro-war. But if you're going to be criticizing people who have an overly inflated view, in your opinion, of human nature, where are your criticisms for the neo-cons and Bush?

Probably the main reason I support Bush is because I support the general thrust of his foreign policy -- even if I have doubts about its implementation. I like his confidence in Democracy and his desire to spread it. The main reason I would criticize the left is for, well, being like you. Trending isolationist, etc. . . .

Bush is somewhat of a utopian -- which I why I dig him -- well in my weirder moments.

Where are your denunciations of him?

I agree that sometimes people need to be smacked to come back down to earth. And given my propensities, I may be one of them. But in this day and age, I feel we need quite the opposite. I think America is demoralized and fearful and pessimistic. I think it is crucial at this time for Americans to stand up for and defend the Western values of freedom of speech, etc.

We are confronting a militant ideology which seeks to inflict grave damage on our way of life and to intimidate us.

So I feel you're really striking at the wrong group and at the wrong time. As I said, if I were to criticize the left, I would criticize them for abandoning a liberal foreing policy outlook and for insufficiently having faith in America and our way of life.

Furthermore, liberals are much more likely to embrace religious pluralism (atheists are a very small minority, though active on the net) and to stress uncertainty in theological matters. Whereas conservatives are likely to have a great deal of confidence in traditional religion.

So some liberals are snooty. Well some conservatives act as if liberals are just vermin to be exterminated.

So, really, in many ways you are a "leftist." To use a well-known phrase: "Real, you're living in a pre-9-11 world, you leftist you" ;)

And I mean sure "leftists" have their problems but it is the conservatives who are waging war on both sides. We're not dealing with Marxists, we're dealing with reactionary fundamentalist Muslim radicals both with Al-Quaeda and with Iran.

So a lot of your criticism just seems misplaced and irrelevant. So we have some snooty liberals in some universities and in Hollywood. Big deal. They're not in power.

If anything atheists are persecuted. There was a study out, I think, that showed that Americans distrust atheists more than almost any other group. And there's almost zero recognition of them in public, whereas in Europe they're far more numerous.

Most people would say if anything, it's fundamentalist social conservatives who are the problem. Meddling in our personal lives (like with Terri Shiavo), opposing gay marriage etc. So I'm not sure what you're thinking.

You should at least be aware that your rhetoric is not very inviting to those who are not hard-core conservatives.

[eusto]

Eusto,

I will try to carefully consider and answer each of your points.

Mythology -- I'm talking about morphic resonance. We can't help resonating with ideas we learn from respected authorities, or that just surround us in our communities. I am as vulnerable as anyone else. But having read and thought about Sheldrake makes it easier to notice how deeply and irrationally entranced we all can be.

Yes we have to be careful of uncritically being sucked into prevailing views. But I would avoid the jargon if you want to avoid creating the wrong impression.

"Leftist" is an abbreviation for a complex political category. I would rather not have to type 3 paragraphs every time I refer to the category. Sometimes I use the term "progressive" or "liberal," but they're to narrow. I can't use "anti-capitalist" because that only describes the radical Marxist left (sort of).
Anyway, if you have a better word I'll use it.

To me leftist is a term of derision. Perhaps far left or as I said liberal.

Yeah, you are assuming a lot. Very often, what is good for one individual or group is bad for others. As a simple example -- people, generally, like to win competitions and overcome obstacles. That is a big cause of joy for most of us. And every time someone wins, others lose. The socialist dream of keeping everyone on the same level, if it ever succeeded, would remove a large amount of joy from life.
Even terrible suffering often leads to joy, in unpredictable ways. And too much fame and fortune, on the other hand, often results in boredom, addiction and depression.

I explicitly distinguished pleasure from the good to avoid these problems. My notion of the good is a very rarified one. But to be concrete, almost everyone is only truly happy when they are expressing love, when they are truly making the world a better place. I think these sorts of goods can lead to true happiness whereas the pleasures you mentioned above would not.

We can't measure whether technology has done more harm or more good, and it depends on each person's perspective.

We can get a pretty good idea though. If we marshall all the data, I bet we could get a broad consensus on each piece of technology: whether it was good, bad, or fifty-fifty say.

I said technology has caused our worst problems, I never said it caused nothing but problems. There is no need to point out to me that technology has benefits. I think technology is the flower of our culture.

Fair enough, but you must admit that by constantly stressing the limitations of technology and downplaying human progress etc., it is very easy to get the wrong impression.

Well yeah, that's what I said. Why does it bother you if I dislike arrogance. If it's a secular leftist or a narrow bigoted Christian or Republican, or whatever, I still don't like it. How does it obscure truth if I complain about arrogance?

It doesn't, but you seem to be perpetually harping on the left with nary a peep on the right, as I wrote above.

That's where I don't agree with you. We humans are as understanding as we can possibly be, given our small brains.

You're making a lot of assumptions there about the nature of a person -- secularist assumptions in fact :)

Compassion is just as dangerous as anything else when it goes too far and gets out of control. The pro-life movement is partly fueled by malignant compassion. Marxism is hideously compassionate.

Wisdom and compassion must work in equal measure.

None of that is true about me. I think there is goodness in man and in America.

It's very easy to misconstrue you if you only point out the negative on things.

The American founders had a healthy awareness of human weakness, and it's really important we don't forget that. Look at the terrible mistakes the neocons made in their plans for Iraq. They ignored the wisdom about human nature and fell for the leftist myth that humans are essentially good (whatever it is they mean by "good"). Marxism and some forms of liberalism and progressivism, all make that kind of mistake.

Okay, you're making sense. It is important to have a healthy sense of human's failings. But I tend to think if we want the good, we need to emphasize the good -- and only rarely give someone the smack down if they look like they're getting out of touch with reality. If you just keep telling someone that they're bad, well, they'll be bad.

I'm not sure who's at fault for the misconstruals, but I know I am not the only one to have misconstrued you.

And, imo, on a personal level, humans should view themselves as fundamentally good but work hard at eliminating the bad. I tend to view humans as 75% good, on average, but they need to be trained and educated so that the good within can flourish.

[eusto]

Real,

Obviously we cross-posted on the neo-con thing. But your frequency of criticism towards the right seems far far less frequent than your criticisms of the left and secularists.

Well, best wishes and good luck. See you around. I'm rambled on for far too long, and I'm glad that we have a better understanding of the other. Thanks for your responses.

[amba]

The pro-life movement is partly fueled by malignant compassion. Marxism is hideously compassionate.

I love that. Malignant compassion.

Real, you may be a Taoist, among other things.

I agree with you (those these aren't your words) that scientific rationalism is drunk with power right now, and tends to see man as potentially godlike, able to solve all problems and know all things via science. That's a disastrous error. Religion goes to the other extreme and teaches us not to trust ourselves at all -- to surrender to God as mediated, unfortunately, by human authorities. Oops! Same error again, in another guise.

[AmbivaBro]

Some religious people claim, on behalf of their religions, that that's what their religion teaches, when in fact that's not what it teaches at all.

This book "Judaism, Physics and God," which I'm totally drunk on right now, shows the religious mind at its relentlessly questioning best -- using science and religion to find a common unifying and ordering principle in all of existence.

At their best, science and religion both do that, digging a metaphysical Chunnel from different directions.

[amba]

Yeah -- I should've said "fundamentalist religion." It is based on radical mistrust of the human will, which ironically results in slavish dependence on the word of supposedly divinely sanctioned authorities who are thoroughly human. We can't escape the curse/challenge/blessing of responsibility for our own thoughts and actions. Even when we project that responsibility elsewhere, it's still we who are projecting it.

"Metaphysical chunnel"!! That's right up there with "malignant compassion." What a thread we weave!

[realpc]

"scientific rationalism ... and tends to see man as potentially godlike, able to solve all problems and know all things via science. That's a disastrous error. Religion goes to the other extreme and teaches us not to trust ourselves at all -- to surrender to God as mediated, unfortunately, by human authorities."

amba, that is very true. Since God is invisible and unfathomable, it's easier to get distracted and worship human authorities.

[amba]

Yes. And directly following the guidance of God (whether you call it "God" or not) is an art, like celestial navigation. You have to trust that you have a God-given instrument within you that is imperfect but still accurate enough to plot a decent course. It's a balancing act between humility and confidence.