From: fayegh@cs.ubc.ca (David Fayegh)
Subject: Re: Traditional And Historical Armenian Barbarism...
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 05:43:03 GMT

hbm@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Hasan B. Mutlu) writes:
><1992Aug19.081902.12212@cs.ubc.ca>
>fayegh@cs.ubc.ca (David Fayegh)
 . . .
|>>How do you define ``culture'' and why do you think that 
|>>the desire to possess a nuclear arsenal is `culturally self evident'?.

|>The everyday forces that shape our lives (politics) and our reactions
|>to these forces (culture) are merely manifestations of the same thing.

What is this "thing" `thing' :-). What thing?

|>To isolate what has become known as 'culture' in the West with another
|>abstracted term, 'politics,' is to play with semantics.

All you have to do now is somehow relate what you have wrote above and 
provide some kind of an answer the second part of my question. 
Regardless, I disagree with your generalizations. Here are two definitions
of ``culture'' that I can live with: 

n., v., -tured, -turing. --n. 

1. The quality in a person or society that arises from an interest in
and acquaintance with what is generally regarded as excellence in arts, 
letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.

2. (hist) a particular form or stage of civilization

|> Culture has
|>historically represented the everyday lives of a social group. This 
|>isn't something you think about, you just accept it in the way you
|>accept the fact that George Washington was the first president of 
|>America.

How are you relating this `historic fact' to the realities of here-and-now?
How can it form the basis for future solutions?. The problem is that such
`sociological' definitions of culture seem to be very `static' with 
no reference to the evolutionary nature and emergence of the various 
qualities, that can be "regarded as excellence in arts, letters, manners, 
scholarly pursuits, etc.". 

|>>>>(1) What humanity needs is not more nuclear weapons, but the adaptation
|>>>>of environmentally-sound technologies for civilian nuclear power generation
|>>>>and utilization.  How about sharing now?

|>>>In that, your promises sound a lot more like traditional Marxist analysis.

|>>No "promises" were intended. I was just pointing to the desperate need for the
|>>diversion of all (such) military technologies to their civilian equivalents.

|>No sweat.

:-)

|>>How many schools can you build and staff with the money invested/spent in/on
|>>building, maintaining, and disposing of one single nuclear warhead?
|>>Any `arithmeticians' out there?  

|>As I indicated earlier, it is a dog-eat-dog world of all-against-all, where 
|>ethnic and racial groups fight forever to capture and maintain their 'purity' 
|>by endless demands of territorial adjustments, and endless and ever new 
|>claims on moral and cultural superiority. 

|>In such a world, 'human rights'
|>is a very important policy tool to badger the other fellow with. In this
|>'brave new world' there is no 'conflict resolution' as such. 

Right ... and thats why there is need for _more preliminary_ ``work'': 
systematic development of a body of internationally recognized conflict 
resolution policies and the requirements for their peaceful implementation.

|>>Can you imagine the consequences of adapting such `diversion policies', 
|>>world-wide, for, say, 25 years?.  

|>Nope. 

Let me help a bit:

When nation-states will finally realize that it is to their best interest
to divert their resources strictly into the civilian sector, 
they will be surprised by the amount of ``work'' (with lots of "sweat" :-))
and effort needed to draw-up, agree upon, and implement internationally 
accepted ``conflict resolution'' schemes that can be eventually used to 
resolve most (and may be even all) `group conflicts' peacefully and
equitably. The eventual outcome would be that there will no longer be
a need to even have a military. There will be no wars and armed conflicts
and every nation-state will have its own `bread basket'  and be able to
feed itself, will be self-sustaining, willing to openly share its ``culture'', 
wealth, expertise, etc. etc..

What methods of conflict resolution does "traditional Marxist analysis"
provide? 
 . . .
|>> ... conflicts continue as long `we', both as individuals, and as part of
|>>a larger ``group'' (be it ethnic, religious, etc.),  are _not_ willing 
|>>to recognize and solve the ``real'' problems and blindly continue to 
|>>perpetuate `hate' under the facade of ethnic, religious, political, ..., 
|>>ethnocentrism, fanaticism, ``xxxx-ism', etc..

|>The concept of 'citizenship,' a concept derided by the old school
|>Marxists as a 'bourgeois' concept hiding the 'exploitation of
|>masses,' suddenly looks light years ahead of the new terrorists'
|>exclusive reliance of ethnic homogeneity. As a dear friend once put
|>it, citizenship meant an order wherein people of different ethnicity
|>and backgrounds could voluntarily come together and live in peace
|>by observing the laws of the land. An illusion?

How did they `derive' (?) this concept? The problem with all such
`xxxx-istic' analysis is that political/religious ideology can not 
be subject to `formal' analysis and is often strictly a matter of 
`belief'.  Even if one could devise such a formal system to support 
one's `xxxx-ism', one must immediately acknowledged that such a system 
is `incomplete' and hence deficient (can't answer questions that can 
be posed within the framework of the formalism itself) at the outset. 

|>>This type of ``behavior'' (by both individuals and ``nation-states'') 
|>>and the resulting effects on one's surroundings has very little to do 
|>>with "fate".  Repetitious `historical' review of `barbarism' alone 
|>>contributes very little if the goal is to seek _equitable solutions_. 

|>The American media is one of most superficial attributes and 
|>legends. While each of us has formed conceptions about certain
|>people and events, it is unlikely that many of those opinions
|>developed from personal experience.

True, but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?.

|>>>>Well, if "the future is not what it used to be", then `the past is not
|>>>>what it will be'! ;-)  Any way you slice it, you are left without the 
|>>>>future or the past. So lets focus on the ``here-and-now'' domain for 
|>>>>a bit.

|>>>But what makes you think that it will work this time in 'here-and-now'
|>>>domain?

|>>Because we can only ``work'' here-and-now.  One doesn't solve problems
|>>by just remembering the past and fantasizing about the future. 

|>The history repeats itself.

In some ways, yes, but only if `we allow it'.
 . . .
|>>>That you can create your own society.
|>>Again, an `individual' can not "create" his/her own society. 

|>I am forced to disagree with you. From time immemorial history has
|>been full of activists. And early activists were mostly in religion
|>and social causes.

Who is `forcing' you :-)?.

In my view, such activists were only a very small part of the overall 
picture. History is renditions of events and perception of state of affairs
by necessarily biased individuals. Hence, all historic facts are necessarily
subjective. Regardless, an activist does not single-handedly "create" his/her
own society, but rather, educates a group of `followers' to collectively 
_change_ certain aspects of the society; for the better or for worse; 
starting with a set of _given_ conditions. No?

|>>`Collectively', however, `nation-states' can change the _given_ conditions
|>>governing `life' on this fragile planet. `Individually', one can
|>>only change oneself and certain aspects of one's immediate 
|>>environment.

|>Nope. For most of us television, rather than print media, is virtually
|>our only vivid source of information about these people and events 
|>which play a major role in shaping how we perceive the world while
|>it fosters an illusion of certainty.

You bring up some very valid points. Even with the print media, it takes
a lot of filtering to get at the information. One solution would be to
stop watching TV all together and/or improve its quality to foster fast,
accurate, and educational `transfusion' of information.

|>>>>Now, if activism is to be used to induce awareness
|>>>>about a noble cause and advance it through equitable and non-violent
|>>>>methods, then I would be the first to join without any hesitation.
|>>>>As you have stated above, "activism can be used in many areas"; 
|>> . . .(*)
|>>>Fine. However, if a movement is deprived of a philosophy, mere
|>>>taking to the streets can not create a lasting effect. 

|>>Right ... that's why I wrote ((*) above):
|>Swell.

:-).
 . . .
|>>>>Please elaborate.  

|>>>Probably the best paradigm of the 'new world order' "thing" is represented
|>>>by the Disney theme parks. The mouse that roars billions in cash receipts
|>>>becomes the voice of a new global generation that wears the same designer
|>>>jeans in Lisbon and Lima, watches the same MTV in Los Angeles and Cairo,
|>>>and carries an instant conversation through personal computer bulletin
|>>>boards in Istanbul and Tokyo.

|>>The paradigm referred to as the "'new world order'" is an `old' concept
|>>that is now being `re-exploited' for `short-term benefits' by many ...
|>>But then what else is new?

|>Heisenberg's 'Uncertainty Principle' of quantum physics reincarnated
|>in the land of Disneyrock as the democratic cynicism that questioned
|>the traditional separation between 'reporting' and 'that which is
|>reported.'
 . . .
|>>>The 21st Century unfolds at such a blinding pace that we do not even
|>>>yet have a vocabulary to correctly identify the emerging social forms.

|>>How true ... Shall we try to come up with a protocol for cooperation
|>>rather than what we have been doing :-). What protocol do you suggest?

|>Sorry, but I must say 'no.'

Why must you? How about a 'may be'?

|>>>>As for ideas, I am willing to share to
|>>>>the best of my ability until it becomes an obsession ...

|>>>Play fair. Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and
|>>>draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day
|>>>some.

|>>Right on, so lets ... live and let live plus much much more ... right?

|>What about those 'black hearts under black capes,' though?

What about them?

|>>Now that we have thought a few seconds or less about all the above
|>>and some more, shall we change the Subject line to something more 
|>>appropriate please? 

|>Well, you eat yours and I'll eat mine.

As I said before, I am fasting right now and will not be eating for a long
while. However, feel free and eat as much as pleases you.

|>Hasan B-) Mutlu

		'Understand, love, and, respect all human beings whenever 
		and wherever you see them and under whatever circumstances 
		you meet them.  All children should necessarily be loved 
		and cared for since this is the only way to rid humanity  
		of all the hatred, cruelty, and arrogance that it so
		desperately and demonstrably suffers from ... 
							(David Fayegh - 1992)

Take care for now, --df