|
You seem like a nice guy, and I think maybe we got off on the wrong foot. If you thought I was being belligerent, I apologize, as that was not my intent. What I'm going to say next might sound condescending, but I don't mean it in that way. The way you are thinking sounds a lot like the way I was thinking 4-5 years ago. Basically toward the end of my undergrad career, and just after(although I was never a Marxist). Let me elaborate on what I mean. (This will be a long post)
The two things I have (or had, to be more precise) in common with you was that I had been rather deep in Daoist thought, and thought that there were so many parallels between ancient Roman culture and our own, that I could relate the two, and thus predict how things would go in the US, and in the most extreme sense, "warn" of impending disaster.
Let me start with the Daoism thing. The two major things that attracted me to Daosim was the concept of the Dao, and the emphasis on polar opposite forces (one not being "better" or more desirable than the other), largely because it was observable in nature. Those two things I'd say are still somewhat important to my life, particularly the latter, because I think there is scientific evidence to support that (protons/electrons, positive/negative charges (damn English giving those concepts connotations  , but I digress)). The whole "Dao" path thing... not so much. The problem with Daoism, is that like any other religion, it is filled with a bunch of magical bullshit. Things like living an eternal life here on Earth (not metaphorical). Things like licking a girl's pussy will make you live longer. Things like the secret to keeping your "life force" is not ejaculating (I'm not making this up). It's just magic bullshit, like every other religion. So, like any other religion, when you question parts of it, you inevitably must question all of it, including the concept of the "Dao." I still like reading things like The Water Course Way when I'm feeling philosophical, but by and large I think it is just a bunch of crap.
On to the Roman thing.
Leaving undergrad I thought I had figured it out. I saw the patterns. While others in the past had tried to connect Roman history and US history (how could you not, when our government is deliberately based on the Roman republic), I was going to get it right. It was all right there. The government corruption. The inefficiency of the system. The division between the old generation and the new generation (see Cicero vs. Catullus and friends). The use of fear of outside threats to coerce people to get more power (Cataline conspiracy, Caesar as dictator). I was going to get it right.
Bullshit.
It just doesn't work, and more importantly no one fucking cares. Seriously, they fucking don't. Not only does the general population not care (nor will they ever), even fellow ancient historians really don't care. Sure, it is something to talk about casually when you're shooting the shit between other historians, but no one would actually put the time and effort to doing it in an academic way. You would get shot to shit by critics. The time period is too broad. There are too many holes. There are too many non-parallels. The span of time is just too long. I would only ever attempt such a thing long after I was a tenured professor somewhere that had already made my career doing much safer historical work.
I want to briefly discuss what it is like to "do" history in an academic and professional way. When we draw parallels to the modern world, or even other time periods, it is only in passing for greater understanding. It is generally to relate an understandable concept (something in the modern world) to something that is less understandable (something in the past). We aren't trying to draw conclusions about the now or the future by studying the past. That just isn't what happens in the classroom, or when doing academic work. We just don't do it. We are too busy talking about the time we are studying for its own merits. We are too busy trying understand the past in its own right. My adviser has a saying that he uses a lot. "Take things on their own terms." That means sort of a lot of things. It means don't look ahead. Don't take what you know what will happen in the future to people in the past, and think that they would know. That seems like an obvious concept, but it is hard to do. Don't inject modern thinking into ancient minds. You can apply modern academic thought to past cultural/political systems, but don't think that the people you are studying understood it this way.
On to the reductionist thing.
Historians in almost all fields have to work in reductionist ways, to some degree, out of necessity. One advantage of working in the ancient world is that it is a bit like pokemon: you can collect 'em all. What I mean is you can collect and engage most if not all the evidence about what you are working on. There is a concept of scarcity vs. abundance, with regards to historical evidence. Ancient historians generally work in an area of scarcity. There is just a limited amount of evidence for us to work with. This just stops being true the closer to modernity you get. I sort of feel sorry for people that work beyond, say, the 17th century. There is just too much evidence. You can't consider it all. You just can't. So you have to go reductionist, to a degree. You have to decide on certain factors (whether they be political, economic, military, etc.) and work with those. You have to focus your argument into something that is manageable, and in doing so you inevitably end up focusing on certain aspects, to the detriment of all the rest. Is it right? In a perfect world, no. However, it is what most historians have to do. That is why you get these reductions to specific aspects.
|
On April 01 2012 07:46 HardlyNever wrote:
You seem like a nice guy, and I think maybe we got off on the wrong foot. If you thought I was being belligerent, I apologize, as that was not my intent. What I'm going to say next might sound condescending, but I don't mean it in that way. The way you are thinking sounds a lot like the way I was thinking 4-5 years ago. Basically toward the end of my undergrad career, and just after(although I was never a Marxist). Let me elaborate on what I mean. (This will be a long post)
ok let's be friends
The problem with Daoism, is that like any other religion, it is filled with a bunch of magical bullshit. Things like living an eternal life here on Earth (not metaphorical). Things like licking a girl's pussy will make you live longer. Things like the secret to keeping your "life force" is not ejaculating (I'm not making this up). It's just magic bullshit, like every other religion. So, like any other religion, when you question parts of it, you inevitably must question all of it, including the concept of the "Dao." I still like reading things like The Water Course Way when I'm feeling philosophical, but by and large I think it is just a bunch of crap.
Don't really know or care anything about this stuff, which just sounds like superstitious accretion onto legitimate philosophical tradition (c.f. Christianity - which is imo a less interesting philosophical tradition but nevertheless legitimate, although that basically died with Augustine); I'm mostly only interested in the daodejing, the zhuangzi, and the yijing, along with the analects of Confucius. None of those texts involve any of that nonsense. "Confucius did not talk about strange things, powers, chaos, or the spiritual." Everything I say about Daoism is just my own thought from taking an academic class on the topic and then spending five years letting it sink in and recently re-reading them. I have never talked to anything like a Daoist "priest" and don't know if they believe anything like that, nor do I care if they do.
In addition to being a daoist, I am an atheist, a philosophical realist, and a firm believer in the scientific method. I must however admit that I do enjoy cunnilingus and any superstition which promotes that activity seems ok in my book (and socially adaptive to boot!)
It is interesting to note re the present discussion that in the Daoist commentary of the yijing it is considered a insult to the oracle (and to be entirely missing the point) to attempt to use it to predict the future.
but no one would actually put the time and effort to doing it in an academic way. You would get shot to shit by critics. The time period is too broad. There are too many holes. There are too many non-parallels. The span of time is just too long. I would only ever attempt such a thing long after I was a tenured professor somewhere that had already made my career doing much safer historical work.
Never claimed it would fruitful or interesting to try to map the correspondance between the two as a self-contained academic thesis. Two data points do not an interesting curve imply. But what you say above this quote are fruitful observations to make. The trick is to extract the structure from the context.
I want to briefly discuss what it is like to "do" history in an academic and professional way. When we draw parallels to the modern world, or even other time periods, it is only in passing for greater understanding. It is generally to relate an understandable concept (something in the modern world) to something that is less understandable (something in the past). We aren't trying to draw conclusions about the now or the future by studying the past. That just isn't what happens in the classroom, or when doing academic work. We just don't do it. We are too busy talking about the time we are studying for its own merits.
I am happy for historians to do this work so that I can draw on their conclusions to do the things that they are too busy to do (or which fall outside the scope of their discipline). Just because you aren't trying to do it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to do. Remember I'm not a historian, but I do draw on the work of historians and would not be able to do my work without it.
Don't inject modern thinking into ancient minds. You can apply modern academic thought to past cultural/political systems, but don't think that the people you are studying understood it this way.
Yes, this is critical. We have no disagreement here.
On to the reductionist thing.
Historians in almost all fields have to work in reductionist ways, to some degree, out of necessity. One advantage of working in the ancient world is that it is a bit like pokemon: you can collect 'em all. What I mean is you can collect and engage most if not all the evidence about what you are working on. There is a concept of scarcity vs. abundance, with regards to historical evidence. Ancient historians generally work in an area of scarcity. There is just a limited amount of evidence for us to work with. This just stops being true the closer to modernity you get. I sort of feel sorry for people that work beyond, say, the 17th century. There is just too much evidence. You can't consider it all. You just can't. So you have to go reductionist, to a degree. You have to decide on certain factors (whether they be political, economic, military, etc.) and work with those. You have to focus your argument into something that is manageable, and in doing so you inevitably end up focusing on certain aspects, to the detriment of all the rest. Is it right? In a perfect world, no. However, it is what most historians have to do. That is why you get these reductions to specific aspects.
Yes, you are completely right. Analysis is the precondition of synthesis. You cannot be non-reductionistic until you have been reductionistic first. It is a bit like picking a variable to hold constant in an experiment, because you cannot start by considering the entire parameter space at once. Once you have done all of this work, however, you want to move beyond that and develop a more comprehensive theory.
As far as the overabundance of information: I study postmodernity. This problem is basically the ESSENCE of postmodernity. In Jamesonian terms, the goal is to develop a "cognitive map" that allows one to navigate the complexly interconnected world space of late capitalism without a) having to know every detail and b) going crazy.
Which brings us back to strategy.
It is fruitful to consider the difference between a reduction and a heuristic.
edit:
On April 01 2012 07:46 HardlyNever wrote:
no one fucking cares.
I care.
|
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
|
On April 01 2012 01:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Nincompoopery? We're having a pretty interesting discussion I think. This is what your english class should be like.
You seem to be worried about people "arguing" in your blogs, but there's a big difference between "arguing" and "argumentation."
Kukaracha, I'll post a couple of closing responses to that last post soon.
Yeah I have problems with people arguing in my blogs. I must be doing something wrong with them.
But if you think it's a legit discussion, please go ahead.
|
On March 26 2012 17:46 Azera wrote:
Has the entire human race lost it's way? Has greed consumed our souls, poisoned our minds thoughts? What exactly is 'the way'? It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world...
I have to disagree with this portion of the OP. I don't think we were ever pure, or that there was a time when we flooded the world with "kindness and gentleness" as you suggest. I suspect that throughout our entire history, even predating modern man (in a physical sense), we have committed cruel and violent acts against each other and our surroundings. I don't think we gradually became corrupted by greed or violence. Rather, I think these have always been aspects of our nature and unfortunately our scientific prowess grew faster than our empathy and compassion. Regardless, all things considered I think we're doing better now than we ever did in the past. We are by our very nature impure as our lives depend upon the death of other forms of life. That's the way I see it at least and I hope it makes at least a little bit of sense.
|
On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote:
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on.
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
|
I'm not sure why you're drawing those conclusions.... ?
I have made several recommendations of books where people communicate their ideas about precisely this kind of thing to each other. I could make many more. It's a field called "Literary Theory." You can go to college and study it, and stuff.
My "work" is not so mysterious as all that . My thesis was on representations of complexity and transcendence in the fiction of William Gibson. Next I either want to write about Neal Stephenson or Kim Stanley Robinson, as well as prepare a distilled version of my thesis for publication, so that I can, you know, share my discoveries with others.
I think "constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe" is the most massively useful thing anybody could try to do. It's a fascinating problem as well. You do have to come to terms with that whole religion thing people were obsessed with for so long, though, and figure out what it was they were actually talking about.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have reached its natural conclusion, and Azera wants his living room back. It was nice talking to you! Vale!
|
On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote:
Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time.
This cuts me to the bone 
It's funny because your sentence after this is a less sophisticated way of saying nearly the same thing.
|
On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote:
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on. Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time. On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't. There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake.
To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story.
Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else.
Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action).
The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European).
Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true.
|
And the goal of studying these things is the unmasking of the ideology that creates this apparent contradiction!
edit: well, my pal hardlynever, at least I don't say things like this, amirite?
because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't.
|
The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.
Can somebody explain this to me? I'm not very good.
|
On April 01 2012 11:20 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable. Can somebody explain this to me? I'm not very good.
Haha, it's okay, these are very jargon-y words because communicating these concepts without them takes much longer. the problem is that some people who don't know them get mad and think it is gobbledygook.
demystification means seeing through ideology (the reasons people say that and think that they do things) to the real reasons that lie beneath them. This is the goal of what we call "critical theory."
precondition means the thing that has to happen first before something else can happen
praxis means collective actions that shapes the future for the better (classically, this would be "creating communism" but that word doesn't really mean the same thing that Marx meant by it)
So the idea is that if we want to shape the future for the better, we need to see through the false stories we tell ourselves about why we do things and perceive the real reasons, so that we can plan ahead and take collective action to make our world better. Because this action requires projecting cause-and-effect forward into the future in some way, if the future is TOTALLY unknowable it is a doomed project from the start. This is a popular thing to think these days but I dont believe in it :D
edit: stand up for yourself man. You are super good.
|
On April 01 2012 11:13 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote:On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote:
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on. Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time. On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't. There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake. To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story. Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else. Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action). The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European). Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true.
Well i wouldn't say that every lesson is always learnt, but preemptive intervention is now standard practice in world politics. Obviously the most successful interventions are the ones we never hear about. I think the big problem is that China and Russia have no intention of letting democracy fever take over the world, and so stand in the way of much that the UN try to do, but that is just my little theory.
edit: look up the word gobbledygook and you will see that is exactly what you are engaging in. It does not mean that what you are saying is nonsense, but that it is purposefully full of jargon so that it is unintelligible to 99% of the population so that you can try to appear more intelligent than everyone else.
|
Thanks for taking your time to explain it to me.
"The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable."
has the same meaning as
"To see changes that will make our world a better place, we first have to look past our reassuring lies and fables that we have conceived to shield ourselves from the hard truths."
what does "necessarily future-oriented" and "wholly unknowable" mean?
|
Yeah, that's pretty much it!
Necessarily future oriented just means that, because of what it is (planning), it is involved with the future. You can't do praxis in the present because it's happening right now - any action you will take is going to be in the future but you are going to have to plan that action in the present without knowing how the future is going to turn out. If you cannot know anything or make any predictions about the future (if it is "wholly unknowable") then you can't do praxis.
If, on the other hand, you can make some predictions about the future within some reasonable degree of certainty and make predictions about what effects your actions will have with some reasonable degree of certainty, then you can do praxis!
|
It's not full of jargon because I don't want other people to understand. It's full of jargon because that's how experts talk to each other and HardlyNever clearly has the education to understand these words (and if he doesn't, he is a grown up academic and can ask, and won't be offended by jargon because he has his own).
I have no ego invested in trying to appear more intelligent than everybody else. I am quite secure in my intelligence and have nothing to prove on this front. Believe it or not, I am simply genuinely interested in these things and am stumbling down my own little road to knowledge. By trying to explain it to somebody else, I can figure out what doesn't make sense!
What you are referring to is obscurantism, which I try my best not to engage in.
Good day.
|
On April 01 2012 11:28 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 11:13 HardlyNever wrote:On April 01 2012 11:01 deathly rat wrote:On April 01 2012 09:17 HardlyNever wrote:
It seems like we're going in circles, as well as derailing this thread (or not derailing it, as it was pretty vague to begin with). You ask me what the point of studying history is. I tell you, for me at least( and the people I work with), it is about understanding the past, not drawing connections to the now. You ask what the practicality of that, I say there basically is none. We study it for the sake of studying it. At the very least though, when we make new discoveries or interpretations, we can share those with other people, and in general those people believe us, if we've done it right.
You, on the other hand, talk about this anomalous "work" that you do, which seems to have to goal of constructing some pattern of human behavior/history and from that derive some greater understanding of the world/universe. I tell you that even if you could do this (and that is a massive fucking if), no one would believe you, and it would have no use for the real world.
Normally, when people study something for the sake of study, whether its history, astronomy, mathematics, whatever, they can at least share their discovery with other people. Even if that information has no real world application or purpose, other people can share in that knowledge. You seemed to have moved beyond that. The "discovery" you want to make is simply for you, and no one else would believe you or care. That seems rather pointless to me, and is more like a religion or insanity. However, I could be misinterpreting what it is you are "working" on. Well if I were you I would have given up after "The demystification of the present is the precondition of praxis, which is necessarily future-oriented and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable.". When people write this sort of gobbledygook you know you are wasting your time. On the other hand, humanity has got to learn some lessons from history so that certain mistakes can be avoided in the future. I mean, the obvious example is the Nazis and the rise to power of the petite general. The appeasement of a dictator in Germany by countries in Europe for so long was a huge mistake, as well as the USA completely ignoring the genocide that was known to be occurring until they were forcefully brought into the war by the Japanese attack. These things must be a lesson for future generations, because it is a fact that history repeats itself unless steps are taken to ensure it doesn't. There are innumerable other example one could make, but I think you get the point. You can't predict the future by studying history, but there must be more to it that simply studying History for its own sake. To be fair, it isn't "gobbledygook" when you know what he is talking about. Whether it is relevant or not is a different story. Again, people don't learn and make decisions based on history. They use it to further political agendas, more than anything else. Lets take your "Nazi" example and look at two genocides, both occurring in the 1990s. One is in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia mostly) another is in Rwanda. One of which the US and the UN directly intervened in, the other, basically no one did (if you research the Rwanda genocide, some UN soldiers are present, but they aren't allowed to take any meaningful action). The US was heavily involved in the Balkan conflict. When asked, the answer to the media and American public was that we needed to stop a second holocaust, and to intervene whenever genocide on that scale occurred anywhere in the world. Fine. I'm not implying that US/UN involvement in the Balkans was wrong, what I'm saying is there are other political factors bringing us there (not least of which, they are European). Where is the US in Rwanda? Fucking nowhere. Same thing going on, similar scale, no involvement. Why? No reason to. We aren't learning from history, or fighting to prevent past mistakes. It is only used to further political agendas when its convenient. That isn't to sound pessimistic, it is simply true. Well i wouldn't say that every lesson is always learnt, but preemptive intervention is now standard practice in world politics. Obviously the most successful interventions are the ones we never hear about. I think the big problem is that China and Russia have no intention of letting democracy fever take over the world, and so stand in the way of much that the UN try to do, but that is just my little theory. edit: look up the word gobbledygook and you will see that is exactly what you are engaging in. It does not mean that what you are saying is nonsense, but that it is purposefully full of jargon so that it is unintelligible to 99% of the population so that you can try to appear more intelligent than everyone else.
I'm not the one talking like that. I think you have users confused. I type in this Hemmingway-esque style (lol, I flatter myself) on the internet because it is easy to type and easy to understand.
As far as your original post, it is full of good-guy/bad-guy mentality. The US isn't a positive force in the world. It is a force that furthers US interests. Sometimes that leads to "good" things, sometimes that leads to "bad" things.
The UN was involved in both conflicts, so your theory holds no water. The "ruskies and chinks" could have blocked intervention in Kosova if they wanted to. They didn't. The UN was in Rwanda.
To quote a US intelligence office in Rwanda (I think he was CIA): "Rwanda is a cheese sandwich." Journalist asks him how Rwanda is a cheese sandwich. Officer says "No one cares about a cheese sandwich."
|
Thanks! It's going down in my book of thoughts, this gem.
|
On April 01 2012 11:49 Azera wrote:
Thanks! It's going down in my book of thoughts, this gem.
at least somebody appreciates me
You've got a good heart kid. I see great things in your future.
|
Here's a quote that I like from 'The History of Love',
"Ladies and Gentlemen. We are gathered here today to celebrate the mysteries of life. What? No, stone throwing is not allowed. Only flowers. Or money."
Made me laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
