From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 16:48:29 BST
On 3 Jun 2004 at 15:40, SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
I haven't read Chomsky in years, but I did read "Deterring Democracy"
from cover-to-cover -- largely because I got fed up with his failure
to connect cause and effect in any ways that anyone who reads
newspapers hadn't aldready done.
msh says:
Really? Take a look at my previous post where I quote from DD. If
Chomsky is not bringing to light something not commonly known, how
would you explain the common ignorance (and I don't mean this
pejoratively) of the facts he describes? Of course, if you, through
your reading of newspapers, have already swept well past what Chomsky
talks about, then great.
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
This may be because I was raised with a pretty leftist bias, so
reading Chomsky was like listening to Dad.
msh says:
Sorry about your dad blasting you with leftist bias. This may be a
good psychological reason for rejecting Chomsky, but an intellectual
one?
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
My problem with the guy is that he focuses almost exclusively on the
evils of one actor -- the US. He mentions no other evil actors
except to show that they work in cahoots with the US.
msh says:
This is, of course, a criticism so frequently leveled at Chomsky, and
so frequently answered by him, that I think, by now, when he hears
it, he must just sigh and ask what's for supper. I'll try to answer
for him, for others in this forum who might be interested.
Briefly, Chomsky has many times criticized other actors: China and
Tibet (and against its own citizens); Russia and Chechnya. He has
REPEATEDLY hailed the demise of the USSR as a positive thing for the
world. It is true, however, that his energy is focused against the
US and its allies, a fact he doesn't deny and has explained so many
times, it's hard to understand why someone so well read is unaware of
his explanations: First, he is a citizen of the US and therefore has
some influence over the actions of his government. As a US citizen,
he is morally and patriotically obligated to speak out against the
actions of his government when such actions are seen to be brutal
interventionism for no purpose other than the further projection of
US power, especially as such actions are carried out in his name,
with his tax dollars, and, if he fails to speak out, with his tacit
approval.
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
Although his critiques of the US are valid, his tendency to view the
US in this vacuum brings us nothing we don't already know. In Zen
terms, it is the sound of one hand clapping.
msh says:
Of course, a thorough reading of Chomsky would reveal no such
tendency. And, BTW, the sound of one hand clapping can be the sound
of a powerful slap against a defenseless cheek.
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
The MORALITY statement comes from the MOQ. I see Chomsky's absolute,
almost Bush-like certainly as part of a biological need we all have
(in the sense of it being a hard-wired neurological need), and this
need has two components. The first is what we in Germany call a
"Feindbild" -- an image of an enemy we can know with certainty is
evil and against whom we can rally.
msh says:
This is of course a tremendous diminution of Chomsky's lifetime of
work. He sees no single entity as evil; rather, he sees a particular
ideology, in combination with extreme power, as the source of much
misery in the world, and therefore something we should try to expose
and eliminate. It's interesting that someone who has read one NC
book, and that a long time ago, is able to reduce Chomsky's
motivation to simple biology.
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
Interlinked with this need -- and it is a BIOLOGICAL need rather than
an INTELLECTUAL need -- is the second component: the desire for an
ordered, predictable view of the world. Bingo -- Chomsky provides
that as well.
msh says:
Chomsky has so often said that the world of human affairs is anything
but ordered and predictable, and will never be, that it seems
unnecessary to comment further. Again, some more reading of NC might
be in order.
SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
Attributing "philosopher" status to Chomsky is, to me, a case of
putting BIOLOGICAL quality above INTELLECTUAL quality. In the MOQ,
this is immoral.
msh says:
Given your argument above, we can say the same thing of Bertrand
Russell and many other so-called philosophers. In fact, if your
argument is correct, then any one who attempts to identify "evil" (a
sort of childish simplicity, actually), and who desires to bring more
"order" to the world by trying to expose and eliminate it, is
immoral.
You might want to take a look at my recent post, trying to bring the
MOQ back to the Chomsky thread. The original poster, Anthony McWatt,
saw some MOQ-like ideas in Chomsky's thought, and, I would venture to
say, might not agree with your dismissal of him as immoral. You
might also want to read McWatt's Ph.D. dissertation on the Pirsig's
Metaphysics of Quality; there's a link at MOQ.ORG.
SWZwick@aol.com concludes:
Chomsky does serve a purpose -- basically, he provides a counterpoint
to those in the US who see America as a perfect shining light for the
rest of the world. Unfortunately, those people don't listen to
him....
msh says:
I'd certainly say that many who SHOULD read him, don't. This post is
evidence enough of that.
Thanks for the feedback,
Mark Steven Heyman
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 17:01:51 BST