[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: our defense (Re: profiling and my arabic friends)

On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, J. Marie Hall wrote:
> i think if we let up, we'd get some invasion or something.  we could
> talk about fairness day and night, but i don't think it can be
> discussed presupposing the goodness of people.

This reminds me of something I recently read in an article on left-wing
Israelis and how they've had to rethink some of their positions:

   http://www.topica.com/lists/dadl-ot/read/message.html?mid=803738883

   [ snip ]

   Mr. Klein Halevi imagines that the next peace initiative must start
   with an offer from the other side. Recent events "buried the idea of
   land for peace and replaced it with peace for land." If Palestinians
   want to reclaim land they will likely have to provide peace first.

   For now, he sees Israel recovering from parallel delusions: "The
   fantasy and delusion of the right was that we could be occupiers and
   remain a decent society. The fantasy and delusion of the left was that
   we could simply hand over the territories and win peace."

   [ snip ]

While both of these positions may be delusions, you do have to wonder ...  
given a choice between putting our faith in "our" decency and putting it
in "their" decency ... well, would any of us really have a choice?

> but he came back from the middle east with an impression: that the way
> to keep peace is to have strength enough that it need not be used or
> that it be used rarely.

Alas.

> even though i have hope, it's not in mankind.  that may be were some
> ideologies diverge.

Interesting point.

I've been going through my Stanley Kubrick DVDs lately, and I recently
came across a comment to the effect that Kubrick, despite the bleakness of
his view of human nature, was ultimately still a humanist, because he
believed that humanity had nothing but itself to rely upon.

   http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0092.html

   [ snip ]

   Rod Munday: I find a strong Modernist sensibility in Kubrick's work, as
   well as an equally strong scepticism of what might be termed the
   'metaphysics' of Modernism. By which I mean the way Modernists put
   their faith in certain truths; science as a means of understanding the
   universe, an unquestionable faith in progress, etc. Modernists'
   relationship to truth was pragmatic, unlike the pre-Modernist's belief
   in religious truths being for the glory of God, the Modernist's truths
   primarily served the Modernist, improving the quality of his existence,
   or cancelling out his need to believe in anything greater than himself.
   This inward-looking "faith" was present in much of the work of the
   Modern art movement, with its emphasis on "subjectivity," and the
   importance of the artist in his own work. Kubrick, it seems to me, was
   always on the down side of the Modernist movement, mounting a sustained
   criticism of its hubris. His films magnify flaws in human nature. But
   behind the obvious pessimism, lurks a very powerful humanism. This
   means all Kubrick's work, on one level, can be viewed as a cautionary
   fable. However, this rather trite conclusion should be set against his
   tendency to favour ambiguity of meaning in his work. I think
   ultimately, his personal sympathy for certain theories and approaches
   was subordinated by an instinctive grasp of the truth of an emerging
   situation, even as the cameras rolled perhaps.

   David Culpepper: I recognize the empathy for humanity in Kubrick's
   films. But Humanism, as I understand it, in essence replaces God, fate,
   the Tao (whatever) with the Self. 

   "I am the captain of my own ship."
   "I am the master of my own destiny." 

   I see very few masters of their own destinies in Stanley Kubrick's
   films. Certainly characters make transcendent choices at crucial
   moments, Barry at the duel, Wendy and Danny, Joker killing the sniper,
   Dr Bill at various junctures. But the larger scheme is beyond their
   control. I suppose Humanism is yet another classification that becomes
   more ambiguous as we examine it closely.

   Rod Munday: I think Stanley Kubrick is part of the humanist tradition,
   because the message I get from his films is that he believes humanity
   has nothing greater than themselves to rely on or to guide them. But, I
   believe he also saw the unbearable psychic pain inherent in such a
   realisation. And the defences we erect to protect ourselves from that
   pain: hate, in the final analysis, banishes fear does it not? I think
   Kubrick was interested in mapping out the other alternatives, hence his
   strong interests in myths as a way for humanity to vicariously
   experience something greater than ourselves. I think he saw the need
   for us to extend the boundaries of possibility around ourselves. That
   was perhaps his artistic project. So that we would not think ourselves
   to be at the centre. So we would not see the horizon as a boundary and
   stop moving towards it.

   [ snip ]

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: