Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[cfabel]

This is an interesting sentence.

"any surviving, enduring culture dominates and steals resources(even a
counter-culture): it's in the history books, and the evidence is immutable,
not "relative".

One thing from learned from history, it has always struck me, is that
nothing, particularly not a culture, endures; and that "evidence" is
anything but immutable and always relative to the witness. No set of values,
attitudes, or beliefs fails to evolve, save to die. I'm reading Herodotus
just now and both of these points seem quite clear. 


Rorty? I'm not a fan, but, yep, in trying to racially disentangle us from
our current trajectory he eschews content. I think the classical pragmatists
did a better job, understanding that current content is the only place to
start.  Perhaps what he is trying to get at is that it is people, not
something called a "culture,"  that is doing the dominating and stealing and
as they do they, perhaps, express in practice a set of values, attitudes and
beliefs of which they are not completely conscious; the rationalization
coming later. This behavior is, of course, emulated as it is just the way
things are done. So he wants us to consciously change our "normal" behavior,
perhaps beginning with our  language; perhaps a kind of "stealth" approach?

Your last sentence seems in accord with the above and somehow jangles with
what went before, it seems.

C. F. Abel
Chair
Department of Government
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
(936) 468-3903




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael F [mailto:mff8785 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:57 PM
To: cfabel
Cc: Joseph Tracy; pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

"pragmatic socialist" sounds like something from Rorty, who I consider to be
the American Derrida.  A lot of verbiage and no content, seriously and I'm
not poking fun.  The two of them remind me of Critias and Charmides from
Plato's dialogues, except Critias and Charmides had an impact on history.

"Is it "utopian" to think we can have a world without a dominant empire that
steals most of the resources?"

As I stated earlier, any surviving, enduring culture dominates and steals
resources(even a counter-culture): it's in the history books, and the
evidence is immutable, not "relative".  I find it entertaining to see how a
handful of academics let aboriginals peoples from all over the globe off the
hook on this one.  Arguing that "empire" is bad is an act of war or an
intellectual act of violence.  I'll quote The Judge from Blood Meridian on
this one:

"If war is not holy than man is nothing but antic clay(307)."

It is odd how Modern man tries to shape his own image of himself into
something that he finds "palatable", and this image changes as we
"progress".  Ironically, those who like to whimsically shape man's nature to
thier own liking, don't recognize that our "desire" is our nature and the
the particulars are continually varying(historicizing).

Mike

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu> wrote:
> How about anarchism?
>
> C. F. Abel
> Chair
> Department of Government
> Stephen F. Austin State University
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
> (936) 468-3903
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joseph Tracy
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:58 AM
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden
>
>
> My question, as far as the isms issue is whether there is substantial 
> evidence that Chomsky ascribes to some grand ism. I have never gotten 
> that sense from reading him over the years. He seems to be a pragmatic 
> socialist with a strong commitment to basic freedoms and the equal
application of law.
> Is it "utopian" to think we can have a world without a dominant empire 
> that steals most of the resources?
>
>
>