Heidegger

—– Original Message —–
From: “Malcolm Riddoch”

> Universal: we are all constrained by relations of power that constantly
> override any moral considerations, there is no ‘exceptionalism’.

I could point out that you lace all your “power” analyses with morally
loaded terms (”murder your neighbor’s children,” “murder, rape and
dispossession”), thereby making clear that your “power” analysis functions
as a vehicle for your moral judgments. And once your interlocutor points
this out, you immediately reply that relations of power are amoral and
override any moral considerations, and ask why your interlocutor has “moral
feelings” about the terms you use - terms such as “murder your neighbor’s
children,” “murder, rape and dispossession” etc etc.

Comprehende?

>> If you need a particular example for the universal, why
>> not find it somewhere more disinterested like Timor Leste or Congo
>> (4 million dead and counting) instead of in a conflict where most
>> readers will already have their prejudices decided by years of
>> bickering, and centuries of anti-semitism?
>
> So you would prefer I just stay away from the main geopolitical drama
> unfolding in the Middle East, the one that involves the world’s lone
> super power and all the other great powers in a struggle for energy that
> “will not end in our lifetimes” and that is even now defining our new
> world order? And this because it’s contentious? Are you serious, still
> playing dumb or are you a spoiler? In effect you seem to be arguing that
> it’s pointless discussing the contentious problem of “terror” in relation
> to the US, Palestine, Israel, Iraq and Iran and that I should do
> something a bit less troublesome.

No, when there are other examples of “relations of power” in the world of
which the moral connotations are not in dispute between you and your
interlocutor (i.e., which all agree constitute *murdering* neighbor’s
children and rape - such as Pete’s example above), then in *dialogue* about
power relation, why not use those instead - if, that is, you’re really only
interested in analyzing relations of power. Which of course you’re not.

>>> Would you vote for military control of the Persian Gulf to
>>> sustain your way of life?

Prime example of Malcolm’s m.o. (yeah I know, “Do you have moral feelings
about that sentence….)

>> I would if physically controlling the Gulf was the only way to
>> keep them from flying into local buildings, and otherwise impinging
>> on my way of life, but not to control access to oil. Filthy stuff.
>> I wrote my Masters thesis on wind turbine airfoils. Sadly I
>> couldn’t persue that career because oil was too cheap.
>
> Wait until the Goldman Sachs super spike hits, $US150/barrel, then dust
> off your old masters thesis. I think sustainable energy tech is going to
> be a very strong growth industry and eventually a matter of national
> emergency. We’ve barely begun to feel the effects of this growing energy
> crisis and look where we are - an illegal war in the Middle East with
> over 100 000 dead, extra-judicial assassinations, detention and torture,
> middle classes drowning in debt, retired generals mutiny, a US congress
> eating itself alive

Prime example #2. (next reply: “And the point is …. what exactly?”)

Posted on Saturday, June 3rd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback