Re: Re: Charles Simic:

Hi Curt,

I grew up in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, in the interior well away
from Vancouver or Victoria on the coast. The Native Indians were–probably
still are–treated with general contempt by much of the white populace and
East Indians and Chinese were mostly relegated to marginal status in the
society. One of the reasons why land-claims negotiations with the Native
Indians are so prominent here is because there often never were treaties of
any kind. They were simply shunted onto 'reservations' and, often, the
children were taken from the parents and placed in 'residential schools'
maintained by churches, which weren't big on Native culture or, as it turns
out, the welfare of the kids. The Asians were not given the vote until the
fifties. They were not 'slaves' but were not far from it.

But, then, neither is the "liberal" party that is in power, currently,
liberal. It is a reincarnation of the 'social credit' party that was thrown
out of office years ago, but they didn't want that bad name or the
conservative name, which also was in disfavor at the time. State/Provincial
politics here has usually been conservative, as it is currently, only it is
called 'liberal' now. Federal politics here has usually been inclined toward
whatever party makes enough noise claiming to recognize the existence of
British Columbia; it's far away from the eastern federal government and so
many find they have more affinities on a north-south axis than a west-east
one. So I suspect that there are various parallels between parts of the
South and where I am from.

The most prominent art here is the west coast Native art, which is known
around the world.

Unlike the South, apparently, there is a strong history of organized labour.

The economy is not particularly entrepreneurial. British Columbia has vast
resources in timber, water, and minerals. So the economy, away from the two
urban centres Vancouver and Victoria, has always been centered around the
extraction of resources which we ship abroad raw and buy back refined at a
higher price. Hewers of wood and carriers of water, as they say.

The literary art is usually either provincial or canadiana. there is little
distribution of the writing outside of canada when it is published in
canada.

educational standards have fallen, certainly, both in the public schools and
the universities and colleges. tuition is much higher. the standard of
living supported by a teacher's or professor's wage has certainly slipped.
the tuition is forever going up and the resources are forever being cut
back. higher student/teacher ratios. less emphasis on learning and more on
getting a job.

the rich stay rich, for the most part, and the poor stay poor, though the
standards of what it means to be rich or poor are not as dramatic at each
end as they are in the USA.

still, as elsewhere, people from bc are proud of where they are from, are
proud of things like socialized medicine, organized labour, social programs
of various kinds, the public schools and universities/colleges we have, not
a lot of homicidal mayhem, the natural beauty of the land, the place of
native art in the world, and so on. as they should be.

it is by no means a perfect arrangement and, the closer you look, the less
shining it is. but i imagine this is not unusual. part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.

so of course we have our own problems and problems shared by people
elsewhere. mostly i was interested in the simic article for what light it
might shed on how bush and cronies stand a good chance of re-election. sorry
if you're offended by my bringing up such an article. i realize Southerners
must be sick of excursions from the north into the South and their finding
it dark.

ja

> Hi Jim,
>
> I actually grew up around Fairhope, Alabama, and have a bumper
> sticker that reads, "I brake for boiled peanuts." It's funny
> when the shoe fits. And yet in the next few months I'm lecturing
> on net art/design in Calgary, Sao Paulo, and Tel Aviv. So maybe
> the shoe doesn't fit. Because maybe the shoe is so multifaceted
> and cryptic that it's more like a labyrinth than a shoe. No
> cultural anthropologist worth her salt would presume to take a
> vacation to Bali, write up her initial subjective observations,
> and expect to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt;
> and yet Yankee pundits (and Holywood producers) continue in vain
> to search for that elusively discernible insight into the heart
> of "the South." After all, it's just "the South." How
> complicated can it be? Perhaps it's this presumptive
> condescentsion that causes most such pundits to come away
> thinking they've hit paydirt when they've only begun to scratch
> the surface.
>
> cf: http://www.pifmagazine.com/2000/05/m_clon.php3
>
> In a more "defensive" vein, there are two environments in which I
> get a heavily creepy, clubby, assumptive,
> we-all-know-what-the-true-perspective-is-wink-wink vibe. One is
> around trailer park racists who assume that because you're white
> you share their views. The other is around "tolerant" liberals
> who assume that because you're educated you share their views.
> Both groups are prone to speak with a lazy conviction about
> things of which they have limited experiential knowledge.
>
> peace,
> curt

Hi Jim,

In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome – I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.

You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.

It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:

+++++++++++++++++

1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004

+++++++++++++++++

Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.

That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.

Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.

It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.

On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.

viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt

P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.

_


Jim Andrews wrote:

part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.

curt===


thank you for pointing out the actual logic behind bush's supporters—

though i'm certainly not one of them, and do strongly disagree with many of the points raised, i'm awful glad someone had the balls to humanize these people and to consider where their logic is coming from—i've never viewed republicans as simplistic, easily-led "rednecks," mostly because doing so solves no problems whatsoever—it's really only once we begin to empathize with and make a sincere effort to understand one another that any real progress is made—you have obviously done this, and i thank you for it—

bliss
l


curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jim,

In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome – I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.

You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.

It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:

+++++++++++++++++

1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004

+++++++++++++++++

Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.

That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.

Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.

It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.

On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.

viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt

P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.

_


Jim Andrews wrote:

part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/



XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/




———————————
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

as t.whid pointed out, curt, the anti-abortionist logic is widely understood
by abortionists and anti-abortionists alike, and has been for a long time.

it seems that support for the republicans comes mainly from large majorities
of a few groups: the religious right, those involved in military industry,
the wealthy, and those who believe that the current republican methods for
eradicating anti-usa terrorism are the way to do it. the first three groups
won't change much before the election. it's the size of the last group that
will determine the election.

listening to rudy giuliani speak during the republican convention last night
was very disturbing. he is convinced that the usa cannot count on support
from europe and other countries, that many of the traditional allies of the
usa are "appeasers" of terrorism and the usa is both morally and
pragmatically obliged to pursue the sort of unilateral military actions it
has engaged in since 9/11 until all anti-usa terrorist groups are destroyed.

but such organizations cannot be destroyed by unilateral military actions.
anti-usa feeling has increased dramatically in the world, particularly in
the arab world, since the republicans went on the rampage. unilateral
military action fuels anti-usa sentiment and the consequent anti-usa
terrorist organizations rather than destroying them. now and well into the
future. such actions poison the future.

what is required is real international cooperation. but that is not possible
under the republicans. four more years of bush will mean further reshaping
of the usa to support perpetual warfare on the arab world. it must be
perpetual because the unilateral nature of it increases anti-usa sentiment
rather than diminishing it.

the republicans will also further reshape the usa to empower the religious
right in running all manner of organizations in the usa. i suspect that even
a lot of people from the religious right value the separation of church and
state that has traditionally nurtured both.

listening to giuliani last night, i got an indication of the way the fear
mongering is going to be turned up very high now until the election.

i'm hoping t.whid's and francis's 'cautious optimism' is warranted.

ja

Jim makes a great point. Bush's 'us vs. them' position is going to turn
the entire world into the west bank.

that'll be fun.


On Aug 31, 2004, at 5:06 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
> what is required is real international cooperation. but that is not
> possible
> under the republicans. four more years of bush will mean further
> reshaping
> of the usa to support perpetual warfare on the arab world. it must be
> perpetual because the unilateral nature of it increases anti-usa
> sentiment
> rather than diminishing it.
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

interesting discussion… and at least Curt attempts to position an
antagonistic position.
but as a christian, the "logic" that Curt lays out is what scares me.
it's not logic - it's a logical analysis of someone's (hypothetical)
motives. and materialism is not mutually exclusive to religious
convictions. if you want to talk about policy that effects people based
on a totally contrived shared political system (what else are borders?)
- not on shared religious convictions, you have to talk about the
material effects of that policy, not how it does or doesn't conform to
some particular interpretation of a book that's been translated
numerous times. you can't argue with conviction/faith… that's
dangerous. You can talk about someone taking action based on religious
beliefs all day, but when it comes down to it, their actions have an
impact on others that may disagree - violently. A religious war still
kills people, many innocent (and mostly poor on both sides). Where's
the right to lifers carrying signs of dead Iraqi children (or the one's
dying of preventable illnesses here)? Apparently the US christian right
is way ahead of pomo theory when it comes to relativity. Legal steps to
control something like abortion based on the belief that the fetus'
life is more important than the person carrying it is a huge thing. the
issue with life support and the state in Jeb's florida is similar. if
you can't argue the logical contradictions with the policies and their
effects, your left with what? Why can't we talk about the
contradictions of a state's rights platform that endorses extreme
control of reproductive rights and marriage law through centralized
intervention? We can tax for a war that is saving no one's life (long
or short term), yet a substantial, national health care program that
would save thousands-millions is "communist!"
i don't believe christianity is about ignoring the material effects of
our actions, and i don't believe that the majority of that diverse
group Curt mentioned do either. the leaders of the religious right
certainly aren't ignoring them - just watch the 700 Club financial
advice for preparing for the rapture!

Hi Ryan,

You are arguing with point 19: Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues.
You're suggesting that thousands of dead Iraqis should take precedence.

And with point 3: The Bible is God-approved.
You're suggestion that the intention of the Bible got lost in translation and subjective interpretation.

And you're throwing in the slippery slope fallacy ( http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm ) – if I have religious convictions it could lead me to start a religious war. You seem to be saying that religious convictions are dangerous, suspect, and not to be acted on; but convictions arrived at otherwise are safe. Yet religious convictions can be arrived at through a great deal of intellectual rigor, experiential rigor, or whatever "safe" criteria you might happen to condone. If I discover a topographical map that proves accurate test after test after test ad infinitum, I'm hardly superstitious or illogical to trust that map.

I promised not to get into it point by point, and I won't. But my hypothetical voter certainly could and would get into it with you point by point. She would by no means hide behind her Bible. But I'm guessing it would still come down to her believing that a human fetus is a human, and you believing it's something less. Does a mother have the right to take the life of her three month old child? Y'all probably wouldn't be arguing about that. The fact that you mention the mother's human rights being infringed upon indicates you alread assume the fetus doesn't have those same human rights. So although dialogue is possible, it's probably going to come down to an issue of faith on both your parts (since verification of a human soul is beyond scientific province). The fact that your faith is based on something other than the Bible makes you no more or less de facto "right." You're either right or you're not. The point I hope to make is that her conclusions are perfectly reasonable given her ethical assumptions. You disagree with her foundational ethics, but that doesn't make her illogical or ignorant of practical, material issues.

To agree with you a bit – many black Southern Christians traditionally vote democrat, not because they support legalized abortion, but because they believe fewer people will have abortions if poverty is decreased, and they believe the democrats can decrease poverty.

So yes, there are all sorts of angles and subtleties, and the dialogue is potentially endless, even amongst people who agree on the same basic ethical assumptions. It's the political implementation of those ethics that's often the rub.

peace,
curt

_


ryan griffis wrote:

> interesting discussion… and at least Curt attempts to position an
> antagonistic position.
> but as a christian, the "logic" that Curt lays out is what scares me.
> it's not logic - it's a logical analysis of someone's (hypothetical)
> motives. and materialism is not mutually exclusive to religious
> convictions. if you want to talk about policy that effects people
> based
> on a totally contrived shared political system (what else are
> borders?)
> - not on shared religious convictions, you have to talk about the
> material effects of that policy, not how it does or doesn't conform
> to
> some particular interpretation of a book that's been translated
> numerous times. you can't argue with conviction/faith… that's
> dangerous. You can talk about someone taking action based on
> religious
> beliefs all day, but when it comes down to it, their actions have an
> impact on others that may disagree - violently. A religious war still
> kills people, many innocent (and mostly poor on both sides). Where's
> the right to lifers carrying signs of dead Iraqi children (or the
> one's
> dying of preventable illnesses here)? Apparently the US christian
> right
> is way ahead of pomo theory when it comes to relativity. Legal steps
> to
> control something like abortion based on the belief that the fetus'
> life is more important than the person carrying it is a huge thing.
> the
> issue with life support and the state in Jeb's florida is similar. if
> you can't argue the logical contradictions with the policies and
> their
> effects, your left with what? Why can't we talk about the
> contradictions of a state's rights platform that endorses extreme
> control of reproductive rights and marriage law through centralized
> intervention? We can tax for a war that is saving no one's life (long
> or short term), yet a substantial, national health care program that
> would save thousands-millions is "communist!"
> i don't believe christianity is about ignoring the material effects
> of
> our actions, and i don't believe that the majority of that diverse
> group Curt mentioned do either. the leaders of the religious right
> certainly aren't ignoring them - just watch the 700 Club financial
> advice for preparing for the rapture!
>

On 1 Sep 2004, at 05:37, curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Ryan,

I thought you didn't want to argue this on a net art list?

Ryan makes the case for faith a convincing one. Don't ruin that by
trying to take him to task on an imagined party line…

- Rob.

Hi again Curt,
and not wanting to get into the point by point debate you're trying to
avoid (not interested myself).
but just to clarify…

> You are arguing with point 19: Abortion is an issue that takes
> precedence and primacy over all other issues.
> You're suggesting that thousands of dead Iraqis should take precedence.

i'm not arguing that anything should take precedence… if the point
for "pro lifers" is indeed "life," is it not a valid tactic to get them
to define what "life" is in terms understandable to those not sharing
their perspective? Many would say that current policy does (and
historically has) value(d) some life over others. i'm interested in
why, because i think that religious beliefs (in isolation) don't
sufficiently explain this. what makes one life a valued sacrifice?
>
> And with point 3: The Bible is God-approved.
> You're suggestion that the intention of the Bible got lost in
> translation and subjective interpretation.

i don't get this… and seems besides the point. we're not arguing
about the word of god, but what people use it for.
>
> And you're throwing in the slippery slope fallacy (
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm ) – if I have
> religious convictions it could lead me to start a religious war. You
> seem to be saying that religious convictions are dangerous, suspect,
> and not to be acted on; but convictions arrived at otherwise are safe.
> Yet religious convictions can be arrived at through a great deal of
> intellectual rigor, experiential rigor, or whatever "safe" criteria
> you might happen to condone. If I discover a topographical map that
> proves accurate test after test after test ad infinitum, I'm hardly
> superstitious or illogical to trust that map.

again, not saying that religious convictions lead to religious war,
it's the material results of those convictions that have to be
scrutinized, not their source.

> The fact that your faith is based on something other than the Bible
> makes you no more or less de facto "right." You're either right or
> you're not. The point I hope to make is that her conclusions are
> perfectly !
> reasonable given her ethical assumptions. You disagree with her
> foundational ethics, but that doesn't make her illogical or ignorant
> of practical, material issues.

i guess this is my point: perhaps her conclusions are not reasonable
given her beliefs (not implying ignorance or illogical - it's not about
critical facility). i don't think convictions necessarily remove
contradictions.

> It's the political implementation of those ethics that's often the rub.

i think this statement is what i was trying to say, perhaps.
take care.