Lack of Understanding

[David_McQueen]

The more I read the world issues both here and in the real world () I gets to thinking that for all the talk of global villages there is a real lack of understanding between people.

Taking the most relevant one at hand.

Iraq. The people wanted to get rid of Saddam. Given. But they didnt want a US led replacement. We can see that.

We see the issues of governance in Eastern Countries who have divided into smaller and smaller ones, based primarily on ethnic lines.

It's scarey really that when we really break it down into its most common denominator we cant agree in our churches, in our extended families, our communities and then we want to take our values be they British, Australian, American or whatever into a country for which we dont have no real understanding.

"My people are destroyed", etc, etc.

[Clio]

It really is . It is only when we have the compassionate of our Kinsman Redeemer and His Nature that we should and then only to preach a Love Unlimited and to . There has to be room for and the diversity our Creator so loves.

to your whole thought there, Dave.

[Bravus]

Here's something from my forth-coming book that I think might be relevant:

"What I wish to suggest, however, is that controversy and dissension in which the epistemological, ontological and axiological perspectives of the participants remain hidden is essentially wasted energy and effort – no-one is convinced, no-one learns, people are unnecessarily hurt. On the other hand, discussions in which the participants have reflected critically upon their own assumptions and values, and are able to make these explicit for others, have the potential to be far more productive."

Sorry 'bout the 'academic-ese':

epistemological - ideas about what counts as knowledge, and what kinds of evidence we use to support our claims to know something

ontological - ideas about reality

axiology - ideas about ethics, about how we decide what is right and good

[David Koot]

Ahhh, yes, the professorial touch. Well, herr professor, the question is, in the geopolitical arena, which Mr. McQueen referred to, is there any interest in sharing such backgrounds and perspectives? I seem to recall that self-interest is axiomatic, on that level. If I might borrow a term from the discipline of macroeconomics, the political equivalent of laissez-faire capticalism seems to be status quo for nations--IOW "me first."

David Koot

[Bravus]

Thanks for your response, David. I guess I was addressing an 'ought' as much as an 'is': I agree with you that national self-interest seems to be the dominant mode in international relations at the moment, but I have to believe that that is not inevitable. I'm given hope by things like international aid, given by so many countries to those from whom they don't expect direct benefits in return.

In the final analysis, if our response other cultures is simply to demonise them as 'evil', or even to simply pretend that they are incomprehensible to us, then we are cast back on armed conflict and 'might is right' to deal with any conflicts. Attempting to understand, first ourselves, then others, and to communicate openly and with respect for different views, is very difficult, but it's essential if we're to hold out a better alternative to a hurting world.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

In the final analysis, if our response other cultures is simply to demonise them as 'evil', or even to simply pretend that they are incomprehensible to us, then we are cast back on armed conflict and 'might is right' to deal with any conflicts.

---

Same thing with individual relations and communications, for that matter. Don't bother trying to understand the other person. Just judge them YOUR way and then shove that judgment down their throat til they CHOKE on it. Then blame them for choking. That solves everything.... pshyeah, right.

[Bravus]

Agreed, definitely. My perspective should not be seen as relativism, and the idea that 'all sets of beliefs are valid'. As Paul Feyerabend, one of my gurus, has said 'There is no culturally authentic torture and murder, there is simply torture and murder'. In other words, we will continue to resist beliefs that have evil human consequences. But doing so from a position of understanding rather than misunderstanding is stronger...

...and we've had the conversation before, Nico, so I won't repeat it here (well, maybe a bit), but inner-directed critique is more important than outer-directed, IMO, at least as a first step. Reflecting on the specific moves we can make to bring about the 'oughts' described above, rather than focusing on the ways in which others are failing to do so, is just more productive, again IMO. The concerns you raise are valid, definitely... but you can't necessarily change those people, either, without making some attempt to understand them on their own terms.

[Bravus]

Sorry, Dave McQ, bit of a threadjack there. One more little quote (not from me but from Feyerabend) that I think helps bring us back on topic:

"... my concern is neither rationality, nor science, nor freedom – abstractions such as these have done more harm than good – but the quality of the lives of individuals. This quality must be known by personal experience before any suggestions for change can be made. In other words: suggestions for change should come from friends, not from distant ‘thinkers’. It is time to stop ratiocinating about the lives of people one has never seen, it is time to give up the belief that humanity ... can be saved by groups of people shooting the breeze in well-heated offices, it is time to become modest and to approach those who are supposed to profit from one’s ideas as an ignoramus in need of instruction.... (Feyerabend, 1987, p. 17)"

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

. . . national self-interest seems to be the dominant mode in international relations at the moment . . .

---

Indeed. And, on a cultural/socioeconomic level as well. I tend to agree with Arno Mayer's assessment (a revisionist historian, but oh well) in his book, "The Persistence of the Old Regime." Surveying European culture and history in the nineteenth century, Mr. Mayer found the origins of the Great War in the class and cultural struggle which convulsed Europe during much of that era. (If you recall, the democratic movements which culminated in the Revolution of 1848, for example) The ruling class felt threatened, and believed that by resort to might, to force of arms, their ancient dominance would be affirmed. (Personally, I would add to that mix, the popular belief in social Darwinism, on whose doorstep fairly belongs the whole Aryan master race fiasco.)

A good friend of mine here in Petaluma, is a member of the Revolutionary Brigade of the Communist Party. He, too, has an unshakable belief that the world will change, that kinder, gentler nations will usher in a new era of understanding, harmony and peace. I cannot agree with him, because I believe that human nature will not change. Indeed, the final conflict, which we believe in prophetically, will, I believe, be ushered in by an application of principles enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decades ago, and referred to long before that by Abraham Lincoln--the 'clear and present danger' doctrine. When national survival is at stake, such warm fuzzy concepts as Consitutitional freedoms, fundamental human rights, understanding and empathy go right out the window, and national governments go back to the primitive priority of self-preservation.

So, while I agree with you that a change in geopolitical priorities would be most desirable, I submit that the realities of geopolitics (Metternichian diplomacy included) and human nature, would make that a very, very long shot.

David Koot

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

The concerns you raise are valid, definitely... but you can't necessarily change those people, either, without making some attempt to understand them on their own terms.

---

I agree in principle, that is, in theory. The problem I have is how to implement this without seeming to validate their self-deception and resulting lies/false judgments/false accusations. That is what I struggle with. I'm not so much concerned with changing them as I am with halting their agenda and program to cause me suffering and to attempt to control me and how I define myself. I already have one Devil -- you know, the invisible one who is a master of all such evil -- who spends an inordinate amount of time doing that and a mystifying amount of attention doing so with ME (i.e. "charlie nobody!" hence WHY???) in particular. I don't need henchmen with "skin on" helping him in that department.

-- will end self-serving threadjack HERE.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

The ruling class felt threatened, and believed that by resort to might, to force of arms, their ancient dominance would be affirmed. ... A good friend of mine ... has an unshakable belief that the world will change, that kinder, gentler nations will usher in a new era of understanding, harmony and peace.

I cannot agree with him

, because I believe that

human nature will not change.

Indeed, the final conflict, which we believe in prophetically, will, I believe, be ushered in by an application of principles enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decades ago, and referred to long before that by Abraham Lincoln--the 'clear and present danger' doctrine. When national survival is at stake, such warm fuzzy concepts as Consitutitional freedoms, fundamental human rights, understanding and empathy go right out the window, and national governments go back to the primitive priority of self-preservation.

---

On the whole I tend to agree with you here. I have at times wondered if "Kingdom Come" might not be achieved in a manner different from our traditional understanding of prophecy -- that is with everything escalating worse and worse until finally Christ comes and puts the kibosh on all human plans -- but then I believe prophecy has already accounted for that notion itself by weaving it into the potential rationalizations for what is coming vis a vis the mark of the beast and the source of that whole regime as a religio-political consideration. I think you nipped mental meanderings in the bud when you stated that human nature will not change. The only hope for fundamental change in human nature is Jesus Christ, and not all will accept Him as King.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

I believe prophecy has already accounted for that notion itself by weaving it into the potential rationalizations for what is coming

vis a vis

the mark of the beast and the source of that whole regime as a religio-political consideration.

---

Indeed. And now, we have the German pope, dedicated to giving renewed direction and impetus to Konrad Adenaur's vision of a united, Christian (Catholic) Europe. We also have an evangelical Christian in the White House who is not afraid to use presidential powers, and would seem to give credence to Lincoln's rationale for suspending fundamental rights (such as habeas corpus, in 1862) and we have a volatile world situation just waiting to blow up. I don't think we shall have long to wait.

As for McQueen's wish? Harrumph! I think the way you may see what APPEARS to be what you are hoping for, is in a calculated application of realpolitik.

David Koot

[Nicodema]

Did you hear about the call for a "Religious UN" by Rabbi Metger? This from the beeb might interest you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4800194.stm

[David Koot]

Thank-you, Nico! That is very interesting, indeed. Reminds me of the astonishing endorsement which Massachussetts rabbis gave to the call for a uniform day of rest, back in the 1990's. Now, Muslim imams unite with Jewish rabbis to call for a type of religious coalition? Astonishing, indeed!