Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[Michael F]

Spring ball and teaching has kept me busy over the past few hours, but
I think you guys are taking dialogue in a direction that sets the
stage for reading Pynchon and allows us to see how he presents the
tragedy of Modernity and freedom.


C.F.,

"it has always struck me that all "isms" currently at
hand are derivative of European enlightenment thinking and committed largely
to the now defunct idea that ultimate truths are discernable."

I'd like to think that Descartes and Bacon, the designers and/or head
parishioners of Enlightenment thought, convinced us that we can
discern "truths" using Scientific Method, and these truths will then
allow us to control nature, and our "selves" as well.  Wasn't this (or
isn't this) the plan?  Because we don't like(or can't "see")  the
solipsistic nature of this Scientific truth we posit that there is no
knowable truth?  I listen to this quite often from the so-called
Heideggerians over at Cal and it just gets tiresome after a while.
Metaphysics and Political Philosophy address the divide between
"truth" and political stability.  I tend to think the right-wing and
true readers of Hegel are able to see the necessary distancing and
merging of Political Philosophy and Metaphysics.  Speaking of
Political Philosophy, Leon Craig from the University of Calgary
published a helluva book on "nature" in literature this past summer,
but it sits collecting dust on the shelf, I've only been able to read
the chapter on Conrad's HOD, but I am hoping to get time to read his
chapters on Leviathon and Moby Dick.

Getting back to good 'ole Noam, he completely ignores questions that
true political thinkers have pondered for 2 to 3 thousand years.
Isn't the positing of "truth" without the proper contemplation or
meditation the root of Modern "tyranny"?  It's been a year or so since
I went through the Kojeve/Strauss correspondences dealing with
Xenophon's "Hiero" and tyranny of the masses, but it seems as if this
threads dialogue is going there.  Chomsky is the "ringleader" of the
tyranny of the masses, he claims nothing except the U.S. is evil and
in violation.

"this sort of fancy exhibit an excessive dedication to
essentialism, an intellectual conceit that entails most fundamentally a
definitive rendition of human nature and a subsequent categorization of
people that is implicative of superiority and inferiority for all purposes."

At the Modern university doesn't all "essentialism" relate to
recognizing humans as according to their base, physical
characteristics: sex, color of skin, deomographic affiliation?  This
is the paradox of egalitarianism: "we are all the same, but we
aren't."  We need to know good from bad, and the differences are
qualitative, not quantitative. Concepts such as "essentialism" need to
be left behind, and some of us need to recognize "good" and "bad."
"Our" leaders are not superior to Osama Bin Laden?  According to Noam,
they've done something wrong.  Of course, this attitude, aka liberal
nihilism, is where Liberals lose me, say what you will about
Bush(either one) or Obama, they are much superior human beings to
Obama.  My judgement has nothing to do with skin color or nation of
origin.  One side allows society to move,function, and take place,
while the other cripples and paralyzes it.

Mike

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> And I think I might be a figure self-condemned by such committed actions. A guy
> who just likes to read and post and argue. In my personal mythology, perhaps
> condemned by what i see as some deep meanings of Vineland, which we all batted
> around here. Namely, that it was not being more active---not just in protest but
> in local efforts of government and education that let the sixties' idealism
> wither ---to be replaced by those who took power because they
> wanted power......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 1:40:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden
>
> I wish there were easier and clearer alternatives and answers that had greater
> political viability. Alas there are no easy choices. I have decided to abandon
> the 2 party game and try to help independents and the Green Party, weak as it
> is, and to engage in direct actions and to turn my acre into a sustainable
> permaculture zone. I also work with the Quakers. I wanted to believe that Obama
> was what he said but I deeply believe that there is no promise for the future of
> the earth and her children in that direction. I don't mean to be strident and I
> could be wrong, but have to follow my convictions and speak them.  I am not
> bitter (though occasionally pissed off)but oddly happy ever since I decided to
> follow this path. I also agree that Chomsky's thoughts on Bin laden were without
> nuance and probably unhelpful.
>
>
> On May 15, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Mark Kohut
>> I know this isn't directed at me, but I just want to add, Joseph, after our
>>last
>>
>> exchange---
>> and with statements of your vision (if I got it right)  I alluded to positively
>>
>> in another post or two I made
>>
>> last evening,
>> I think I agree with a lot of your observations about our--US; West;
>> world's--militaristic undergirding,
>> about the slow--and sometimes faster---turn to undemocratic decision-making; to
>>
>> the creep of "friendly--and
>> very not so---fascism" and more...................
>>
>> My general love of Pynchon is because of his vision toward seeing that
>> stuff.....
>>
>> I guess I see my politics that partly comes out of the above, differently than
>
>> you do yours........
>>
>> And I'm often unhappy with mine....but so be it.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Sent: Sun, May 15, 2011 7:12:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden
>>
>>
>> On May 15, 2011, at 10:02 AM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, although quite difficult to measure, the growth of democracy
>>> continues at an astounding pace.
>>
>> Democracy is growing where the US has  lost control:  most of the southern
>> Americas but most tenuous in Mexico, Columbia and  Honduras where our influence
>>
>> is strongest.  The hunger for democracy is strong and growing across the world
>
>> and not least in places where we have supported dictators like Mubarak. My
>> argument is entirely about the the US military economic empire and its
>> corrupting effects on Constitutional Law and democratic process here and
>> abroad.. The point about energy is that our current  bi-partisan solution is
>>the
>>
>> anti-democratic use of force, the propping up of a predatory and still
>> unregulated banking system, and the denial of meaningful measures to address
>> carbon emissions, or conserve energy .
>>
>>
>> Things are not getting better. The Gulf is being turned into a dead zone, we
>>are
>>
>> at the beginning of a long period of climate catastrophes like the flooding in
>
>> the large river systems  and droughts in many regions, we rely on unsustainable
>>
>> agricultural practices, and we spend an insane  amount of money on wars that
>>are
>>
>> doing far more harm than good. The point is not about democracy as an idea
>>with
>>
>> global appeal. It's about us. Where is the great democratic improvement in
>>Iraq.
>>
>> How is the US exhibiting or promoting the  best values of our history.
>>
>>
>> At any rate democracy is useless if it leads to fracking, wars of aggression,
>> investment scams  and  mountaintop removal.  But these problems are not caused
>
>> by a tyranny of the majority , but the ability of the elite to obstruct the
>>will
>>
>> of the people. Obama is on the side of that elite. His promises sounded good
>>but
>>
>> they were all lies.  One more president to substitute military adventures  and
>
>> wall street deals for the courage of his stated convictions.
>