Bin Laden

[cfabel]

Well, here's how it struck me at the time. "Never" is one of those
unfalsifiable, unverifiable statements of at best
decreasing-unto-disappearing verisimilitude, depending on context; you know,
like the ones we find in ideologies and religions. The sorts of "things"
that the committed put forward as something we "just know." Also, just
tautological. The propositions together are just the conclusion in a, really
not very, different form. 

 

So let's try to make it say something. Assume the context of a group, I
think; isn't that is the assumption? Further assumption too, a single person
in a group, not being violent; doesn't make the group nonviolent, right? How
many does? If the whole group, then is it their nonviolence that is
"producing"  nonviolence? Does that really make sense? I suppose we can make
it make sense. OK, it could be use to convey the idea that nonviolence isn't
"catchy," right?  Well, empirically not true; context dependent (Not
speaking of Gandhi here. Speaking of sociological, anthropological and
psychological experiments, ethnographic studies, case studies.  Now that I
think of it, though, you might say that Ghandi's context allowed
non-violence to "work" to an important extent, I think. Not everyone was
nonviolent, but perhaps enough people were to make it work; so that we could
say intelligibly that non-violence "produced" nonviolence?) 

 

Ok, so assume a group (A), nonviolent, facing a group (B) bent unreservedly
on doing violence to A (the usual counter to "the Gandhi"). The nonviolence
isn't really producing anything in the context, right? Nonviolence simply
is, at the moment. And the violence to come is of those committed to
violence already. Does speaking of A "not acting" as doing something really
make sense? Well, we can't say that it is "provoking" (a form of
"production," perhaps) the violence as B is already committed or the peace
as it just is already; so can we say it is "allowing the violence?" Or the
peace? That sounds like peace is hovering about on its own somewhere
awaiting  Well, this is not producing it either, it seems. Perhaps to "not
allow the violence, A would have to do something. Run? That would
(probably?) initiate the violence, right? But is that the same as
"producing" it? So how is peace or violence "produced" in this particular
context? Neither by acting nor not acting. Doesn't that mean that
"Producing"  is simply a silly term in all of these contexts? 

 

Let me know.

 

 

C. F. Abel

Chair

Department of Government

Stephen F. Austin State University

Nacogdoches, Texas 75962

(936) 468-3903

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: therichardryan at gmail.com [mailto:therichardryan at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Richard Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:49 PM
To: cfabel
Cc: malignd at aol.com; pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Bin Laden

 

Proposition A:  Violence has never produced Peace.

Proposition B: Non-violence has never produced Peace.

 

If Props A and B are both true (and I think they clearly are) then the only
logical conclusion is that violence or non-violence has nothing to do with
the establishment of peace. Which explain why the pursuit of justice (for
example) yields better results than either the pursuit of violence or
non-violence.

 

I don't see why Prop B is a silly sentence.  It seems rather obvious.

 

 

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:35 PM, cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu> wrote:

> Neither has non-violence.

> 

> Silly sentence.

> 

> 

> 

> C. F. Abel

> 

> Chair

> 

> Department of Government

> 

> Stephen F. Austin State University

> 

> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962

> 

> (936) 468-3903

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On 

> Behalf Of malignd at aol.com

> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:54 PM

> To: pynchon-l at waste.org

> Subject: Re: Bin Laden

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> violence has never in history produced peace, only the occasional

> 

> weary pause in overt hostilities.

> 

> Neither has non-violence.

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>

> To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>

> Cc: kelber <kelber at mindspring.com>; pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>

> Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 9:03 am

> Subject: Re: Bin Laden

> 

> I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not

> 

> rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for

> 

> hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid

> 

> of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.

> 

> Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." ~ Martin Luther

> 

> King Jr

> 

> 

> 

> I gather the entire MLK quote is being dismissed because the person

> 

> who cited it in this case included the interjection rejecting the glee

> 

> over bin Laden's assassination within the quotation marks. I believe

> 

> the bit about "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate..." etc is

> 

> actually a quote from one of MLK's sermons. At least, it has been so

> 

> attributed for many years. It has been one of the central tenets of

> 

> non-violence in general since the 70s or 80s as I recall. There was a

> 

> poster, I remember, way back when. And this much is certainly true:

> 

> violence has never in history produced peace, only the occasional

> 

> weary pause in overt hostilities. Peace, like democracy, has yet to be

> 

> given a chance. Call it what you will, Dave, "it is an easy thing to

> 

> rejoice in the storm that destroys our enemy's house."

> 

> 

> 

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:14 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

>> http://thedailywh.at/2011/05/02/misattributed-quote-of-the-day/

> 

>> 

> 

>> MLK Jr didn't say it.

> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --

> 

> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all

> 

> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the

> 

> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments

> 

> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates

> 

> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant

 

 

 

--

Richard Ryan

New York and the World

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks to all who saw VTM's new production!

"Brilliant!";"Superb!" - NYTheatre-wire.com www.kingstheplay.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110504/a097ea50/attachment.html>