Bin Laden

[Richard Fiero]

cfabel wrote:
>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.

All this wonderful cerebration is, well, just wonderful. How much 
violence does it take to put a gun to an unarmed old man's head and 
pull the trigger? One killer has killed another.
Cerebral exercises lead us away from acting politically to a kind of 
New Age personal absorption.
Anecdotally we see that the results of the peaceful Egyptian 
revolution were far more successful than the Libyan uprising where 
peace could be achieved by the rebels putting down their weapons and 
going home.

>
>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