Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...

Posted by Ivan Pope | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dyske Suematsu <dyske@dyske.com>
> It is when someone like Halle Berry who is 50-50, who feels she
> needs to side with one side or the other by the societal pressures, ...
the real culprit
> isn't her, but our cultural construct called race and its tendencies to
> pressure her to side. Because the society does not like to accept someone
to
> be neither.

Dyske,
I'm still not happy with your position. You say that Halle Berry is 50/50
(black/white) and you also say that race is a cultural construct.
If race is a cultural construct, what value does it have to say that someone
is 50/50 black/white? That's just a simplistic bit of shorthand for 'they
don't fall easily into either of our standard constructs about racial
types'. And, if someone has a need to define themselves within one of these
constructs, surely this is nothing to do with their skin colour but to do
with their position within society and their need to find a secure place
therein? I have an (adopted) sister who is half Lebanese, half British.
Growing up in a v. white town, she was generally called a 'half-caste'. Now,
is that a term of abuse, or a useful statement of neutrality? I know what
she thinks. She has spent her life to date trying to reconcile who and what
she is. I have watched her tie her life in knots trying to find a safe
harbour where she is accepted for what she is. And the thing is, in 'white'
company she is white and in the company of arabs or persians she (oh, remind
me, what colour are arabs, or are they neutral) is happy with herself.
Ivan
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Ivan,

    You have given me a great example of suffering that is caused by our cultral
    construct. My point is that there is nothing wrong with terms such as
    "black" and "white". It is when you project this categorization back into
    reality, as if it was nature's intention to create these category, that
    someone like your sister must unnecessarily suffer.

    I agree, if she feels that she needs to identify herself with one or the
    other, I have no criticism. I don't need to add to her suffering by
    criticizing. My disappointment with Halle Berry, as I said, was my selfish
    wish that a Hollywood star like her would stand up against the societal
    pressures to be categorized when no such categorization is necessary. This
    will create a role model for others whose situations do not reasonably call
    for siding with either or.

    Best Regards,
    -Dyske

    > constructs, surely this is nothing to do with their skin colour but to do
    > with their position within society and their need to find a secure place
    > therein? I have an (adopted) sister who is half Lebanese, half British.
    > Growing up in a v. white town, she was generally called a
    > 'half-caste'. Now,
    > is that a term of abuse, or a useful statement of neutrality? I know what
    > she thinks. She has spent her life to date trying to reconcile
    > who and what
    > she is. I have watched her tie her life in knots trying to find a safe
    > harbour where she is accepted for what she is. And the thing is,
    > in 'white'
    > company she is white and in the company of arabs or persians she
    > (oh, remind
    > me, what colour are arabs, or are they neutral) is happy with herself.
    > Ivan
  • Ivan Pope | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    >I ... wish that a Hollywood star ... would stand up against the societal
    > pressures to be categorized when no such categorization is necessary.

    Well, define 'necessary'. Obviously it was necessary at some level, because
    it happened.
    Ivan
  • Michael Szpakowski | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    But it isn't language or even some sort of neutral
    'cultural construct' that makes skin colour or
    ethnicity ( or indeed the way we 'choose' to
    categorize it) matter in our society, but the
    existence of racism, something which was actively
    created by our rulers initially to justify the slave
    trade.
    As with the war in Iraq I am not agnostic about this
    but choose to do what I can to combat it.
    Indeed the issues are interlinked - the government in
    UK are doing their best to link the issues of Iraq,
    Asylum and Terror with the effect that they have
    created a pogrom atmosphere and an opening for the
    nazis to emerge from their sewers.
    It's indicative of the kind of deadly passivity
    engendered by your position, Dyske, that after the
    initial concrete discussion of issues around the war
    in Iraq the whole thing has meandered into vague and
    abstract philosophising.
    You still didn't answer my question:
    If truth is a completely relative matter how do planes
    work, indeed how are we e mailing each other or how
    does any technology work?
    Two supplementaries: is racism a bad thing that we
    should actively opposes - yes or no?
    Is 500,000 deaths in Iraq from sanctions by 1996 'a
    price worth paying'( Madeleine Allbright) - yes or no?
    Michael

    --- Dyske Suematsu <dyske@dyske.com> wrote:
    > Hi Ivan,
    >
    > You have given me a great example of suffering that
    > is caused by our cultral
    > construct. My point is that there is nothing wrong
    > with terms such as
    > "black" and "white". It is when you project this
    > categorization back into
    > reality, as if it was nature's intention to create
    > these category, that
    > someone like your sister must unnecessarily suffer.
    >
    > I agree, if she feels that she needs to identify
    > herself with one or the
    > other, I have no criticism. I don't need to add to
    > her suffering by
    > criticizing. My disappointment with Halle Berry, as
    > I said, was my selfish
    > wish that a Hollywood star like her would stand up
    > against the societal
    > pressures to be categorized when no such
    > categorization is necessary. This
    > will create a role model for others whose situations
    > do not reasonably call
    > for siding with either or.
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > -Dyske
    >
    >
    > > constructs, surely this is nothing to do with
    > their skin colour but to do
    > > with their position within society and their need
    > to find a secure place
    > > therein? I have an (adopted) sister who is half
    > Lebanese, half British.
    > > Growing up in a v. white town, she was generally
    > called a
    > > 'half-caste'. Now,
    > > is that a term of abuse, or a useful statement of
    > neutrality? I know what
    > > she thinks. She has spent her life to date trying
    > to reconcile
    > > who and what
    > > she is. I have watched her tie her life in knots
    > trying to find a safe
    > > harbour where she is accepted for what she is. And
    > the thing is,
    > > in 'white'
    > > company she is white and in the company of arabs
    > or persians she
    > > (oh, remind
    > > me, what colour are arabs, or are they neutral) is
    > happy with herself.
    > > Ivan
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    =====
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    > >I ... wish that a Hollywood star ... would stand up against the societal
    > > pressures to be categorized when no such categorization is necessary.
    >
    > Well, define 'necessary'. Obviously it was necessary at some
    > level, because
    > it happened.

    Hi Ivan,

    Good question.

    There is nothing in her physicality that calls for labeling her race to be
    black or white. The necessity is imposed by our culture that defines race in
    terms of black and white. Imagine a society where race is not defined in
    terms of color but in terms of the degree of shade (darkness and lightness).
    As we have several different words to describe air temperature (hot, mild,
    chilly, cold, freezing, etc..), this society simply have words to describe
    several different shades of skin color. Say, s5, s4, s3, s2, and s1. In this
    culture, the suffering of your sister would not exist. She is simply s3. She
    is just one of 5 different categories of race.

    Her suffering in our society becomes necessary just because we see and
    impose categories of race in terms of black and white. In other words, we
    are projecting these arbitrary categories back onto reality as if everyone
    needs to fit into them.

    I must stress that I am not saying that there is something inherently wrong
    with our system of racial categorization. The 5 shade scheme can also create
    problems similar in nature to ours as long as people try to project it back
    into reality.

    I am not advocating to abolish categorization. I am simply stating the
    danger of projecting it back into reality.

    -Dyske
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Micheal,

    > But it isn't language or even some sort of neutral
    > 'cultural construct' that makes skin colour or
    > ethnicity ( or indeed the way we 'choose' to
    > categorize it) matter in our society, but the
    > existence of racism, something which was actively
    > created by our rulers initially to justify the slave
    > trade.

    For this one, please read my last post in response to Ivan. I would argue
    that even without the existence of racism, we would still have a concept of
    race. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept. Just as we have
    words for ugly and beautiful to communicate certain things, we would still
    communicate certain matters using racial categories. As some people have
    pointed out in this discussion, differences can be embraced and enjoyed in
    life. Just because some people like racists would use the notion of
    difference in a negative way, that doesn't mean that we should take away the
    joy that differences can bring to life.

    > As with the war in Iraq I am not agnostic about this
    > but choose to do what I can to combat it.
    > Indeed the issues are interlinked - the government in
    > UK are doing their best to link the issues of Iraq,
    > Asylum and Terror with the effect that they have
    > created a pogrom atmosphere and an opening for the
    > nazis to emerge from their sewers.
    > It's indicative of the kind of deadly passivity
    > engendered by your position, Dyske, that after the
    > initial concrete discussion of issues around the war
    > in Iraq the whole thing has meandered into vague and
    > abstract philosophising.

    It is unfortunate that in this particular topic of Iraq, I happen to be
    neutral. I'm usually not. However, I believe in the ultimate good of the
    humanity. All we need to do is to stand up for what we believe in.
    Eventually, in a long run, the good of the humanity will work itself out.
    You are correct in that my neutral stance may prove to be wrong. If it does,
    I will have to apologize to you. But there is also a chance that your stance
    may turn out wrong. So we need to respect the opinions of others, and hope
    that the best solution will present itself through the good of the humanity.

    > You still didn't answer my question:
    > If truth is a completely relative matter how do planes
    > work, indeed how are we e mailing each other or how
    > does any technology work?

    The planes do work. We know that they do. That does not mean that we know
    exactly why they do. Some of it may be explainable by Newtonian physics, but
    as we all know, Quantum mechanics is refuting some of its claims. Who knows,
    some new theories in the future may contradict quantum mechanics too. So,
    all these theories are nothing but interpretations of our natural phenomena.

    > Two supplementaries: is racism a bad thing that we
    > should actively opposes - yes or no?

    Racism is in all of us. It is in you and it is in me. I make active efforts
    in trying to catch my unconscious prejudice. So, the answer is yes.

    > Is 500,000 deaths in Iraq from sanctions by 1996 'a
    > price worth paying'( Madeleine Allbright) - yes or no?

    The question naturally becomes: "worth what?" There will be so many factors
    that I would have to take into consideration. And, that is where the
    difficulty of the situation is.

    Best Regards,
    -Dyske
  • Michael Szpakowski | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    < The planes do work. We know that they do. That does
    not mean that we know
    exactly why they do.>
    Yes we do! Newtonian physics works just fine for
    planes and suchlike.
    < Some of it may be explainable
    by Newtonian physics, but
    as we all know, Quantum mechanics is refuting some
    > of its claims.>
    Quantum mechanics offers an explanation of things that
    happen at the sub atomic level -it supplements rather
    than supplanting Newtonian physics.
    It's introduction in your argument is a red herring:
    nobody has ever suggested that there may be
    significant quantum effects at work in the mechanical
    operation operation of a plane.
    To sum up - we have a theory which matches what we see
    time after time actually happening - this is a truth
    which is independent of opinion or the way it is
    expressed in language.
    However you are in even more of a tangle than a
    misunderstanding of the relationship between Newtonian
    and Quantum physics, because your reference to named
    theories , whether it be Newtonian Physics, Quantum
    Mechanics or your putative future theory , contains an
    implicit acceptance that one or the other is closer to
    the truth - which truth of course you want to deny
    exists.
    I utterly reject the assertion that "Racism is in all
    of us. It is in you and it is in me"
    Speak for yourself.
    Michael.

    =====
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Jan 30th 2003 1 a.m.
    > Quantum mechanics offers an explanation of things that
    > happen at the sub atomic level -it supplements rather
    > than supplanting Newtonian physics.
    > It's introduction in your argument is a red herring:
    > nobody has ever suggested that there may be
    > significant quantum effects at work in the mechanical
    > operation operation of a plane.

    Before I address this issue, I must preface it with the fact that I am no
    physicist. I can only argue within my knowledge of physics.

    Many consider Quantum mechanics to be a paradigm shift of sorts from
    Newtonian physics, since the former was invented to explain sub-atomic
    phenomena that were not possible with the latter. While it may not have
    changed the practical usage of Newtonian physics, Quantum mechanics put
    Newtonian physics in a new light. It is true that, for all practical
    purposes, things at the sub-atomic level will not make any difference to the
    plane staying in the air. In this sense, the discovery of Quantum mechanics
    did not make any practical contribution. But when we are speaking of "the
    truth" we are not simply speaking of practical matters. After all, humans
    were able to boil water before we had any scientific explanations for it,
    and the explanations did not do much to the process either. Most of us are
    still using fire to boil water. Likewise, one could explain the sub-atomic
    phenomena occurring to the plane and to the air surrounding it with Quantum
    mechanics without having any practical consequences for it. Since there is
    no practical merit in doing such an analysis, most physicists would probably
    not bother with it. But this does not mean that the Quantum explanations
    cannot be applied to it.

    Many natural phenomena were/are unexplainable. Over time we came up with new
    explanations, or different explanations for the same phenomena. Ultimately
    the most relevant point of this argument is that just because we have an
    explanation for something, does not mean that we know "the truth".
    Explanations change over time, or there could be multiple ways of explaining
    something. Explanations are nothing more than interpretations.

    > To sum up - we have a theory which matches what we see
    > time after time actually happening - this is a truth
    > which is independent of opinion or the way it is
    > expressed in language.

    Just because we have not found a phenomenon or a theory that contradicts a
    particular theory, however long it is uncontested for, does not make it
    logically absolute. Scientific theories are constantly changing. Just
    because the sun has risen every day for the past zillion years, does not
    logically guarantee that it will rise tomorrow.

    > However you are in even more of a tangle than a
    > misunderstanding of the relationship between Newtonian
    > and Quantum physics, because your reference to named
    > theories , whether it be Newtonian Physics, Quantum
    > Mechanics or your putative future theory , contains an
    > implicit acceptance that one or the other is closer to
    > the truth - which truth of course you want to deny
    > exists.

    Why does it contain implicit acceptance? Just because we have more
    explanations for things, does not mean that you are closer to the truth. How
    can you prove that? What if what you call "the truth" is behind you, not in
    front of you? And you have been building a whole army of explanations in the
    wrong direction, as it often happens with criminal investigations?

    > I utterly reject the assertion that "Racism is in all
    > of us. It is in you and it is in me"

    Prejudice is a matter of degree. Everyone is prejudiced to a degree. Can you
    claim that you are absolutely free of prejudices? If so, I guess you are an
    exception.

    One day when I was visiting my friend at his apartment, I was carrying a
    plastic bag full of take out food. At the front entrance of his apartment
    building, I pressed his buzzer, but he did not respond for a while. An old
    lady came up to the door and looked at me suspiciously, and asked, "Which
    apartment are you delivering it to?" Since I am Asian (Oriental) and Chinese
    food delivery is popular in the US, it is an understandable confusion, but
    if a blonde white girl was carrying the same bag, I doubt that she would
    have asked the same question. This is racism, a form of prejudice. We
    unconsciously engage in this type of offenses all the time. When people
    focus on criticizing other people for being racists, they tend to look away
    from their own racism inside.

    This is the sort of racism I was speaking of.

    -Dyske
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri Jan 31st 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Dyske
    I do have to say that I find it extraordinary that
    someone who rejects the notion of truth should be so
    convinced that
    "everyone is prejudiced to a degree",
    which of course I accept as a truth in the general
    formulation which you give, although I certainly would
    reject the stronger version you implied earlier that
    everyone is to some degree racist.
    Racism is not a biological fact or urge but a
    construct and not a value free construct but a
    specific social, political and historical phenomenon
    which arose at the same time as the slave trade.
    The point that I have been making piecemeal in reply
    to your posts is once again borne out here: that in
    the very mails in which you reject "truth" you smuggle
    in by the back door assertions which you assume to be
    "true" and this finds its most radical form in your
    last mail when you reject effectively any possibilty
    of doing science, for by your argument applications in
    technology can happen not because we "know" something
    but actually by the merest of chances and therefore
    knowledge of the actual workings of any technology
    will remain forever out of our grasp. I hope I've made
    it plain that I reject this position entirely -it's
    reductio ad absurdam is a position of extreme
    solipsism
    in which we can know nothing about the world, not even
    that our senses are not systematically deceiving us
    about *everything*.
    Now, gripping as all this is we have moved a long way
    from the discussion of the impending war.
    I'm sorry that you adopt a position of neutrality
    about that - I believe you are mistaken in this - you
    strike me as a humane and decent human being and I
    certainly don't wish to impute evil motives to you in
    this matter ( as I certainly do for example in the
    case of Bush and Blair).
    I do continue to believe that your argument engenders
    the most dangerous passivity and for me
    " philosophers have explained the world - the point
    however is to change it" , so, fun as it is chatting
    to you I think as far as the broader philosophical
    canvas is concerned I will have to agree to differ
    with you.
    On the matter of the impending war I am happy to
    continue the discussion on matters of fact, although I
    feel this could be hampered to an extent by your
    rejection of such an animal!
    Michael

    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

    --- Dyske Suematsu <dyske@dyske.com> wrote:
    > > Quantum mechanics offers an explanation of things
    > that
    > > happen at the sub atomic level -it supplements
    > rather
    > > than supplanting Newtonian physics.
    > > It's introduction in your argument is a red
    > herring:
    > > nobody has ever suggested that there may be
    > > significant quantum effects at work in the
    > mechanical
    > > operation operation of a plane.
    >
    > Before I address this issue, I must preface it with
    > the fact that I am no
    > physicist. I can only argue within my knowledge of
    > physics.
    >
    > Many consider Quantum mechanics to be a paradigm
    > shift of sorts from
    > Newtonian physics, since the former was invented to
    > explain sub-atomic
    > phenomena that were not possible with the latter.
    > While it may not have
    > changed the practical usage of Newtonian physics,
    > Quantum mechanics put
    > Newtonian physics in a new light. It is true that,
    > for all practical
    > purposes, things at the sub-atomic level will not
    > make any difference to the
    > plane staying in the air. In this sense, the
    > discovery of Quantum mechanics
    > did not make any practical contribution. But when we
    > are speaking of "the
    > truth" we are not simply speaking of practical
    > matters. After all, humans
    > were able to boil water before we had any scientific
    > explanations for it,
    > and the explanations did not do much to the process
    > either. Most of us are
    > still using fire to boil water. Likewise, one could
    > explain the sub-atomic
    > phenomena occurring to the plane and to the air
    > surrounding it with Quantum
    > mechanics without having any practical consequences
    > for it. Since there is
    > no practical merit in doing such an analysis, most
    > physicists would probably
    > not bother with it. But this does not mean that the
    > Quantum explanations
    > cannot be applied to it.
    >
    > Many natural phenomena were/are unexplainable. Over
    > time we came up with new
    > explanations, or different explanations for the same
    > phenomena. Ultimately
    > the most relevant point of this argument is that
    > just because we have an
    > explanation for something, does not mean that we
    > know "the truth".
    > Explanations change over time, or there could be
    > multiple ways of explaining
    > something. Explanations are nothing more than
    > interpretations.
    >
    > > To sum up - we have a theory which matches what we
    > see
    > > time after time actually happening - this is a
    > truth
    > > which is independent of opinion or the way it is
    > > expressed in language.
    >
    > Just because we have not found a phenomenon or a
    > theory that contradicts a
    > particular theory, however long it is uncontested
    > for, does not make it
    > logically absolute. Scientific theories are
    > constantly changing. Just
    > because the sun has risen every day for the past
    > zillion years, does not
    > logically guarantee that it will rise tomorrow.
    >
    > > However you are in even more of a tangle than a
    > > misunderstanding of the relationship between
    > Newtonian
    > > and Quantum physics, because your reference to
    > named
    > > theories , whether it be Newtonian Physics,
    > Quantum
    > > Mechanics or your putative future theory ,
    > contains an
    > > implicit acceptance that one or the other is
    > closer to
    > > the truth - which truth of course you want to deny
    > > exists.
    >
    > Why does it contain implicit acceptance? Just
    > because we have more
    > explanations for things, does not mean that you are
    > closer to the truth. How
    > can you prove that? What if what you call "the
    > truth" is behind you, not in
    > front of you? And you have been building a whole
    > army of explanations in the
    > wrong direction, as it often happens with criminal
    > investigations?
    >
    > > I utterly reject the assertion that "Racism is in
    > all
    > > of us. It is in you and it is in me"
    >
    > Prejudice is a matter of degree. Everyone is
    > prejudiced to a degree. Can you
    > claim that you are absolutely free of prejudices? If
    > so, I guess you are an
    > exception.
    >
    > One day when I was visiting my friend at his
    > apartment, I was carrying a
    > plastic bag full of take out food. At the front
    > entrance of his apartment
    > building, I pressed his buzzer, but he did not
    > respond for a while. An old
    > lady came up to the door and looked at me
    > suspiciously, and asked, "Which
    > apartment are you delivering it to?" Since I am
    > Asian (Oriental) and Chinese
    > food delivery is popular in the US, it is an
    > understandable confusion, but
    > if a blonde white girl was carrying the same bag, I
    > doubt that she would
    > have asked the same question. This is racism, a form
    > of prejudice. We
    > unconsciously engage in this type of offenses all
    > the time. When people
    > focus on criticizing other people for being racists,
    > they tend to look away
    > from their own racism inside.
    >
    > This is the sort of racism I was speaking of.
    >
    > -Dyske
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    =====
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
  • Dyske Suematsu | Fri Jan 31st 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Michael,

    I tell my friends that everything I say is either a gross generalization or
    a Christo-size blanket statement. It is a joke but at the same time I mean
    it. Whenever we use language, we must generalize. I use the word "chair" to
    point to a particular chair in my room; that is a generalization. There is a
    spectrum of chair-ness, and at some point it ceases to be chair and becomes
    couch, stool, or bench. At what point it shifts is subjective. So, when you
    use the word "chair", you are generalizing a certain area of chair-ness and
    claiming that within that area of spectrum, they are essentially the same
    thing called "chair". This is stereotyping.

    While this is not a problem for chairs, this can be a social problem for
    many situations like race, gender, politics, philosophy, etc.. When in
    reality it is a world of spectrum, you project these generalized grid and
    demarcation by using language. Yet language is a powerful communication
    tool. As with anything powerful, there are powerfully good aspects and there
    are powerfully bad aspects. What I strive to do is to use it carefully,
    realizing what it does to my own perception of the world.

    This is part of why I say the truth is impossible. I sincerely believe that
    your position on this war may be right, and mine wrong. Just because you win
    an argument or lose an argument, or just because you can explain your
    position, or you can't, does not equate to being right or wrong. That is
    just a matter of skill you acquire. "The Truth" is a very personal thing. It
    being personal, it ceases to be "the truth", that is, absolute truth.

    Best Regards,
    Dyske

    on 1/31/03 4:22 AM, Michael Szpakowski at szpako@yahoo.com wrote:

    > Hi Dyske I do have to say that I find it extraordinary that someone who
    > rejects the notion of truth should be so convinced that "everyone is
    > prejudiced to a degree", which of course I accept as a truth in the general
    > formulation which you give, although I certainly would reject the stronger
    > version you implied earlier that everyone is to some degree racist. Racism is
    > not a biological fact or urge but a construct and not a value free construct
    > but a specific social, political and historical phenomenon which arose at the
    > same time as the slave trade. The point that I have been making piecemeal in
    > reply to your posts is once again borne out here: that in the very mails in
    > which you reject "truth" you smuggle in by the back door assertions which you
    > assume to be "true" and this finds its most radical form in your last mail
    > when you reject effectively any possibilty of doing science, for by your
    > argument applications in technology can happen not because we "know" something
    > but actually by the merest of chances and therefore knowledge of the actual
    > workings of any technology will remain forever out of our grasp. I hope I've
    > made it plain that I reject this position entirely -it's reductio ad absurdam
    > is a position of extreme solipsism in which we can know nothing about the
    > world, not even that our senses are not systematically deceiving us about
    > *everything*. Now, gripping as all this is we have moved a long way from the
    > discussion of the impending war. I'm sorry that you adopt a position of
    > neutrality about that - I believe you are mistaken in this - you strike me as
    > a humane and decent human being and I certainly don't wish to impute evil
    > motives to you in this matter ( as I certainly do for example in the case of
    > Bush and Blair). I do continue to believe that your argument engenders the
    > most dangerous passivity and for me " philosophers have explained the world -
    > the point however is to change it" , so, fun as it is chatting to you I think
    > as far as the broader philosophical canvas is concerned I will have to agree
    > to differ with you. On the matter of the impending war I am happy to continue
    > the discussion on matters of fact, although I feel this could be hampered to
    > an extent by your rejection of such an animal! Michael
    >
    > http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Your Reply