My Karma ran over my...oh, you know the joke.

[The Great Quail]

Barbara writes,

>Now why did you stop it short there?  Did you even read what came after?

Yes, and I don't think that any of it negates or even mitigates the 
simple fact your response was that these people *deserved* their 
deaths in the karmic sense of the matter, and that we should "pay it 
and move on."

>I said, "All of us do--as nations and as individuals and beings of the Earth
>and Universe."  Come on now, Quail; don't pick me apart on half a thought.

You are the one who only provided "half a thought." Then take your 
thinking through the logical ramifications. I provided two:

1. The Middle East should have enough bad karma of its own built up 
to, perhaps, "deserve" all the bad things happening to it. I don't 
see you saying, "Maybe the bombing of Afghanistan is a debt that 
should be paid, so they can move on."

2. The US should have good karma built up as well, but no mention of 
that. Why bother with complexity and nuance when you have your mind 
already made up?

>Those are terrible things to say, Quail, considering what I said and the
>point I tried to make. Did I ever say it was only America that has a debt to
>pay?  Did I even insinuate it?  I don't think it, so I doubt I ever
>insinuated it.

It's like the old Holmsian addage of the dog not barking in the 
night... A lot of what you do NOT say is quite indicative of your 
beliefs as well, and certainly provides grounds for my comments.

>If I had tried to
>lay blame on the victims themselves of September 11, I could understand your
>objection.

Ah, but you do, you *do* lay some of the blame upon them. You plug 
their fates -- their horrible deaths -- into your own system of 
justice, and remark that we should pay the debt. Paying a debt 
implies a sense of fairness, no? Of order, of something rightfully 
due?

>But I think if you understood karma, you wouldn't take such
>offense to it.  I

I do understand karma. In fact, I've studied Far Eastern philosophy 
back when I was younger, and flirting with Buddhism, as was 
fashionable for many college lads. I can't say I fully grasp it, or 
even agree with it; but I think I have at least as much 
*understanding* of it as you do.

>don't see there being any right or wrong about it, and
>judgment doesn't register in much when I consider it.  Karma just is.

You are being slippery, here. The fact is, your belief is predicated 
on the fact that we have built up bad karma, and that this was, 
essentially, something that was "due" for us. Your very belief in 
this is automatically predicated upon the fact that you are "right." 
So of course there is right and wrong; of course your statement was a 
judgment. It was more than a judgment, it was a call for us to 
recognize it as being a fair judgment, and then to "move on."

>It's
>consequence from the choices of years and years past.  Things
>happen--whether they be good or bad--because of choices we've made in the
>past.

That I agree with in essence, and I find it can exist comfortably 
outside a system of philosophical debt and payment. But I still think 
it's overly simplistic. In the human sphere, choices have numerous 
ramifications. Perhaps if we would have taken a more imperial stand 
on Iraq in the Gulf War, this may not have happened. Who knows? There 
are so many possibilities, it seems ludicrous to accept one of them 
-- that which actually happens -- as being the one that was "right" 
and karmically "deserved." That implies a larger objective framework, 
an absolute system of morality and correct choices. Although, I do 
see what you are saying. Of course they attacked New York because of 
our past US policies in the Middle East. But that does not mean our 
policies were incorrect, or that their interpretation of events is 
just, or that they were right in doing so, agents of karma collecting 
a "debt." Your statement could very, very easily be interpreted in 
this way.

>It's not
>very appealing to the Western mind. Our Religion's taught us to be
>self-centered--it's about seeking God's grace on the individual.

Not entirely true. It's also taught us to be very compassionate and 
non-self centered. Christianity provided one of the moral foundations 
the West used to end slavery, along with various other attempts at 
charity and the betterment of humanity. (And of course the 
inquisition and pograms and Jerry Falwell and so on....)

>It shouldn't surprise me you'd  be averse to ideas you'd never live
>to see implemented.

Gee, what would I do without you to be my spiritual nanny? Please 
don't tell me what Eastern concepts I am "averse" to -- I am averse 
to YOUR ideas and interpretations, don't try to hide behind a morally 
superior attitude. Until this response, you had no idea what I 
thought about Buddhism in general.

>You propose we try to solve it with a method I think will
>breed more bad karma--military action.  I really don't know anything about
>Buddhism,

And yet you feel comfortable lecturing me about it?

>and that stuff I posted on karma was my first official read on it
>outside of Zukav (and he's hardly official about it).  But I have an innate
>sense (and I bet you do too) that good  breeds good and bad breeds bad.

Yes. But I also have an innate sense of Realpolitik, and that many 
major decisions have more than one moral dimension.

>Dropping bombs on people breeds bad karma (look at the war that never ends).

War never ends, the desire for peace never ends, being born and dying 
never ends. It's human life, and I am sick of hearing this cliche, as 
if we can all stop war just by wishing it away, or that it's always 
the product of some conspiracy. Sometimes force is the only solution 
to a problem -- why? Because there are worse men out there, men who 
will gladly use force to have their way. It sucks, war is terrible, I 
hate it, it makes me sick. But none of these personal emotions will 
remodel global reality so I can have a clean pair of hands.

I still don't understand what solutions you actually have to this 
problem, except appeasement. I have not understood that from the 
beginning, and I don't understand it now.

>Repressing people breeds bad karma (look at Pynchon's essay on Watts, and I
>would imagine M & D to be very insightful on the bad effects of repression
>too). Pollution breeds bad karma (look at our oceans and the ozone).
>Meanness breeds bad karma (look at mean people's kids). Pride breeds bad
>karma (look how the proud are always disappointed).  Anger breeds bad karma
>(this one's more direct--re-read Barbara's 9/11 post and go check your
>bloodpressure : )

Gee, why would I be upset? I used to see the Twin Towers from outside 
my window where I am typing this, and now I only see an empty space, 
below which lie thousands of human beings that died to "pay a karmic 
debt." I can't imagine why your asinine viewpoints would raise my 
blood pressure. Maybe because I'm one of the few people foolish 
enough to take them seriously?

>I could go on and on with this, but I'd hope you get the
>point.

Yes, I get the point that bad actions often breed ill effects. I knew 
that before you labeled it as "karma." But what is your solution, 
Barbara? To free ourselves from the wheel of bad karma? Should we 
just concede the demands of every angry man with a gun? Live like 
Jainists? I actually agree with most of what you are saying above -- 
but I would also add, appeasement can breed bad karma. Inaction and 
weakness in the face of danger can breed bad karma. Showing that as a 
nation you are vulnerable to attack and will not respond can breed 
bad karma. Giving into the demands of psychopathic religious murders 
can breed bad karma.

I only hope that in a generation or two more, our grandchildren will 
be able to sort this shit out. Either that, or God to come down, take 
all the leaders of the Middle East -- that butcher Sharon included -- 
and smack them silly until they can agree to figure out a way to live 
peacefully. He could also, if His Almighty has a few extra moments, 
smack us around until we could find better alternatives to petroleum, 
that substance that makes foreign policy crack whores of us all.

>How could I ever be persuaded that
>dropping bombs on Afghanistan or stockpiling weapons of mass destruction is
>ever gonna create peace?

Direct Question: In your opinion, has the US ever been right in the 
use of deadly force?

>Sure it can subdue and repress--and it does seem
>to be very effective in that respect--but it never creates *lasting* peace.

"Only the dead have known an end to war."
--Plato

>The War that never ends--it ends for a while, but it always seems to pop
>back up somewhere.  Don't you think we have some lessons to learn about why
>it keeps popping back up?  You, me, our nation, our world, our whole
>fucked-up human race?

War is part of human life. It's been that way from the beginning, and 
it does not show any signs of ending. The only way to counter that is 
to socially evolve a system of philosophy that respects human and 
property rights. And yet, even that is not enough -- because you must 
*defend* that society and that philosophy. To believe that the whole 
world will suddenly wake up and end war is lunacy. And I believe that 
the West is trying very hard to evolve a philosophy that will 
ultimately curtail large scale destruction. And hey, even that came 
after the arrogant brutality of colonialism, the Native American 
genocide, two world wars, and Abba.

The human race is, indeed, "fucked up," but no amount of wishful 
thinking in the world is going to teach the entire race a sudden 
lesson. And therefore you make sure your society uses force as 
responsibly and as strategically as possible, and I think in this 
case, the US has made that effort. In fact, I think we should make 
even a bigger effort, in order to control the Northern Alliance until 
the UN can start nation-building.

>Don't you think Pynchon's trying to point out  a lot
>of these 'lessons that never get learned' in his fiction?  I really don't
>think it's just my Subjectivity talking.

That's why it's fiction, Barbara. The best use I could think of for 
Gravity's Rainbow in a real life situation where someone keeps 
stepping up a holy war against you is to use it to whack them on the 
head before they stick an AK-47 up your taxpaying ass.This is not 
Vietnam, no matter how much you and Doug like to think it is. Not all 
wars are the same.

>I think I
>could accept the German Buddhist's remark even as you state it, though.  He
>said "the karmic debt of the Jews," but did you make a line of distinction
>where maybe he didn't? Could he have meant that because the Jews are a part
>of this world, this system, and their forebearers ran a show of force and
>destruction (like virtually every other people on the planet) they should
>expect (as we should all expect) ugly repercussions somewhere down the line?
>The holocaust is a karmic debt. How could it be anything else? All bad things
>that happen are a karmic debt.

I'll tell you what, after that statement, I almost admire the sheer, 
ballsy scale of your belief system! At least your have the courage of 
your convictions, as abhorrent and fucked up as my poor Western mind 
finds them....

--Quail