As well, above a link was provided about Ricks contention that Israel ( the government) is deliberately endangering it’s own people by leaving rockets in Lebanon.http://www.radioopensource.org/chomsky-my-dinner-with-hassan/#comment-15288

For me, these are instances, ones that I could notice anyway, where both Ricks and Chomsky harm themselves, and the communication of otherwise good insights/criticisms.

Depends on what sense of “wrong” you mean. They realized that their intended audience of potential supporters – whatever that group of Americans is who might be attracted to their right-wing wacko message was NOT favorably impressed by deliberately killing lots of innocent civilians. Americans of ALL political stripes find that repulsive.

Not so for Muslims. Many Muslims all over the world might tsk-tsk car and train and plane bombings but in the same breath will imply that it might be justfied by this or that conflict or struggle they support. Successful bombings and other acts of extreme violence in which different Islamic extremist organizations try to top each other have proven to be successful recruiting methods.

But at least that HAVE a search for evidence. No major religion attempts to systematically study the evidence for and against their beliefs and run experiments to test them, and alter their beliefs based on the results.

Science does this routinely, and the result is that science advances and changes, whereas religion starts with a set of theological “truths” that are regarded as universal and permanent. Religious people who claim that science is just another religion don’t understand science.

An interesting tidbit – in recent years it’s been noted that some of our spacecraft seem to be exiting the solar system faster than expected. This and other recent experimental data suggest that some basic assumptions or constants that a lot of other stuff is based on in physics may be wrong. How has the world of science reacted to this? With EXCITEMENT! Everyone is talking about it, proposing various explanations and alternative models and new experiments. This is the most fun physicists and astrophysicists have had in years! If the same thing happened in religion – some discovery that Jesus was never crucified or Mohammed was a woman, they’d be freaking out!

Religion regards its truths as truth with a capital “T” – universal and permanent. Scients accepts that its truth is truth with a lower-case “t” – provisional – the best we can do for the time being but subject to change – hopefully not until the research grant or tenure arrives – but still subject to change.

I don’t know if that’s true or not.

The nation-state was the dominant focus of power in the 20th century, so having “actual regimes” maye have been more important.

Today trans-national or inter-national movements don’t NEED a nation state to be powerful and influential.

In another thread I mentioned that terrorism is based on the open-source paradigm, and our top-down, hierarchical, centralized, power-based attempts to confront it are like Microsoft’s efforts to counter Linux.

The worst thing we can do is allow Muslims’ threat of violence to influence our behavior.

In any case, I think the discussion here which had a good run has come to an end for me.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1213712006

“Muslim cleric wants shutdown of Danish paper

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – Egypt’s top Sunni Muslim cleric on Friday called for the editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish daily that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, to be imprisoned and for his newspaper to be closed down.

The cartoons were first published in Jyllands-Posten last September and then reprinted by other media in Europe and the United States after Muslim protests began early this year.”

no loss there.

Can we get back to talking about Islamo Fascism?

Can someone say false consciousness?

Speaking of Chomsky, I find it interesting how quickly, and viciously he turned on Ron Radosh after his ideological conversion. Kind of like the way he turned on Hitchens.

The two offsite premises include my fledgling debating forums, and the ROS folx Listener’s Club (for lack of a better description) that’s destined soon for either a more relevant rebirth or a wholesale deconstruction. (Probably not the latter, though.)

If you’d like to privately discuss the change-of-venue options, join my fledgling forums and send me a ‘pm’ (private message) by clicking the appropriate button beneath any of my posts.

See you later, pal.

“Hassan Nasrallah

Views on Jews

“The scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb quotes Nasrallah describing his view of Jews: “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli�.

Come now, that doesnt mean anything, I bet he’s just some sort of apolitical liberal.”

It’s interesting, 1st/14th that no one picked up on the Nasrallah antisemitic quote.
It’s too incovenient for people like Silvio to address the issue of antisemitism among Jihadists. Easier by far to quote Zizek’s meanderings or take refuge in Chomsky’s hypothetical universe.

I would say the same to you: I don’t believe that you value open debate; you are too invested in a single point of view.

” it must be said, however, that jdyer has demonstrated him/herself to be opposed not only to the fundamental ethics and practices of argumentation, but also opposed to the spirit of this program.”"

My purpoese here is to show the shortcomings of a program that habitually trumpets one point of vie while claiming to present a fair and balanced program.

Your desire to have me banned speaks volumes about your own inability to deal with a point of view contrary to your own. In this you are a perfect example of what is wrong with this program and website.

“And you conveniently ignore my rebuttal to your charge of ‘link-dropping’. Responsible posters use links and quotations from intellectuals to support ideas.”

Links can not be used as evidence since they usually offer more than one topic and it is often hard to know which aspect of the argument is meant to be used as “evidence.”

Jdyer: first off, congratulations for scouring the entire site for a mention of Edward Said. Who would have thought that a radio program that maintains an open debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would make recourse to a prominent Palestinian intellectual? Unfortunately, I was referring to this particular thread—on Chomsky and Ricks. I do not think it is appropriate to accuse posters on this specific page of things that unrelated participants have posted on separate threads.

And you conveniently ignore my rebuttal to your charge of ‘link-dropping’. Responsible posters use links and quotations from intellectuals to support ideas. This is called ‘evidence’ (in the example I gave of Bush administration quotations) or an appeal to someone more versed in a given tradition than the poster (western philosophy, military strategy, bioethics, whatever).

It seems perfectly reasonable to hear what Nasrallah said to Chomsky, as the Bush administration refuses to communicate directly with Hezbollah. You may lament the fact that Chomsky is the mediator, but the fact of the matter is that the US is indirectly involved in a conflict with Hezbollah, and we must have some form of communication between us if we ever hope to move towards a peace agreement that is acceptable to all sides. A more productive path, instead of lambasting Chomsky, would be to demand that the Bush administration speak directly with Hezbollah.

I thoroughly enjoy hearing different points of view on these threads, but if you don’t believe in the underlying values of the project—radio OPEN source—then bugger off. I am a newcomer here, so I don’t mean to flex non-existent muscle; it must be said, however, that jdyer has demonstrated him/herself to be opposed not only to the fundamental ethics and practices of argumentation, but also opposed to the spirit of this program.

Oh, am I?

“For the site Christopher Lydon Interviews Dave Winer gave me a handsome custom design on his Manila software. Audio-on-a-blog was the new trick we were advertising, along with an unconventional range of interview subjects: poets and prophets including Glen Reynolds, Robert Fisk, Jay Rosen, the late Edward Said, Harold Bloom, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Larry Lessig, Tim Berners-Lee and George Lakoff, among the scores.”
http://www.radioopensource.org/cursing-and-lighting-candles/

I used the names as examples. I never said that with the exception of Zizek they were mentioned on this particular thread.

My point stands.

As for Bernard Henri Levi, I really don’t care what you think about the quality of this thought. I cited him not as an authority but as someone who like Chomsky wrote about the conflict and someone who should have been invited to participate in this discussion rather than Ricks.

And as far as his political philosophy goes he is a lot more convincing on current events than Chomsky who seems to get most of his information from newspaper articles.

As for citing Chomsky: the fucking program is ABOUT Chomsky. He is the guest. WTF? The point of this page is to debate the thinker’s work.

In fact, you are one of the few posters on this page to send us to a Continental philosopher: Henri Levy. And sorry, but Henri Levy is the lightweight of contemporary French philosophy…more of a study in narcissism than a serious thinker.

Silvio, you are not difficult to understand and I did not attack you style of writing, though I do admit that your attempt at wit isn’t always successful.

“Perhaps the threat of terror trumps all attempts at wit. If you examine carefully that list of ‘what armed fundamentalist fanatics might do in the US’, you will see that those are all acts of attempted or successful domestic terrorism that HAVE actually taken place.”

As to the the violence perpetrated by our Christian or Jewish fanatics it has been minimal and it was roundly condemned by most Christians and Jews.

I agree with what rc21 said and will only add that they are a minority within a minority both here and in Israel.

As for my points about the use of “authority figures” I wasn’t just writing about you, Silvio. People throw around names like that of Chomsky, Said, Foucault, (you are the only poster who has introduced the name of Zizek) in support of their arguments as if that automatically proved the argument correct. It doesn’t even prove that the argument is valid, much less true.

The same goes for the introduction of names like Kristol or other neo cons in order to prove an argument false. The neo cons are not automatically wrong on all issues just as the neo-intellectuals cited above are right on most issues.

Each position needs to be argued on its own merits.

Again, I am not writing merely about Silvio or any other single poster. I am expressing a general view about the nature of argumentation on web sites among those people familiar with intellectual issues at play in today’s academies of higher learning.

Perhaps the threat of terror trumps all attempts at wit. If you examine carefully that list of ‘what armed fundamentalist fanatics might do in the US’, you will see that those are all acts of attempted or successful domestic terrorism that HAVE actually taken place. The point being, as Eric Clapton says, before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. This is not ‘blame America first’, but rather ‘there is plenty of blame to go around’. I do not have a definite course of action to pursue. I see that religion is a problem in most societies, but religion also gains popular support by being able to provide simple answers to difficult questions and material support to the needy. Hezbollah may have caused thousands of people to flee southern Lebanon, but it is Hezbollah who will be there to welcome them back and to provide the aid and charity they so desperately need.

Once again, I think my style of argumentation is coming under attack. For the record: I have yet to cite Foucault (as authority or straw man) on this page. The Zizek reference was intended to flesh out a larger conversation on belief with old nick. I did not cite him as an authority, but rather as someone who approaches belief from a different perspective. If you review that post, you’ll see that Zizek was mentioned in an offer to do a book exchange.

And I agree that a link is not an argument. It can, however, provide supporting evidence. When I say, for instance, that the Bush administration willfully conflated Saddam and Osama, it helps my case to show the actual quotations, as documented in a respected publication. If I would be so bold, I would say that the aversion to citing authorities, as well as the aversion to supporting claims with evidence, is what allows for the drivel that occupies about 40% (based on my unscientific study) of the ROS messages.

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=38163

Washington Post Editor Rebukes His Reporter for Television Comments on Israel
BY LEORA FALK – Special to the Sun
August 18, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/38163

“The executive editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., has rebuked one of his Pulitzer-Prize winning reporters for suggesting on television that Israel was purposely leaving Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon “because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations.”

The action came as Mayor Koch and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America pressed the Post on the issue. The reporter in question, Thomas Ricks, is the author of a new book, “Fiasco,” sharply critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

On the August 6 episode of CNN’s Reliable Sources, Mr. Ricks said that “one of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.”

When CNN’s Howard Kurtz asked if Mr. Ricks was “suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its firepower, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here,” Mr. Ricks agreed that he had heard that from “military analysts.”

“I have made clear to Tom Ricks that he should not have made those statements,” Mr. Downie wrote to Mr. Koch…..”

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=38163

You are still attacking a straw man rather than dealing with the Islamic Fascist problem at hand.

My point, too, was that we need to deal with those Jihadists so that other religious fanatics, Christians in the West, Hindu’s in India don’t decide that violence will be the only way to get what they want.

As to your image of what Christian “fanatics” turned to violence would do, I am afraid it is too impoverished. They will probably do everything the Jihadists are doing and more. Western totalitarians of all stripes have never been deficient in coming up with horrific schemes of violence.

“Why are the only defenders of Hezbollah the straw men you guys use to set up your zinging comments? Perhaps if you actually read the posts (or god forbid listen to chomsky and ricks), you might actually be able to engage someone on the left in conversation?”

As to your first point, I did listen to the program and didn’t find Chomsky compelling. Ricks was a little better, though he too at times went off into the use of hypotheticals which he then took to be actual. This, btw, is Chomsky’s main mode of argumentation which makes much of his writing about political matters more than a little hallucinatory.

btw: appeal to authority figures such as Zizek or Foucault is no substitute for a coherent argument. The same is true with setting up links. A link is not an argument.

Make sure you read Dennett’s reply. There is a link at the end of the original review.

Well, I’m neither Dennett nor agnostic (although I hate to present myself as an ‘atheist’ since that implies ‘a position’ on the matter of the existence of supernatural entities. And my only ‘position’ is this: show me empirically obtained evidence of your supernatural entity’s existence BEFORE you ask for my credulity—or for my tolerance of your public-policy-dictating beliefs).

Anyway, I’ll do my best to write a ‘rebuttal’ (for which I am NOT QUALIFIED to offer) by sometime tomorrow. (Unless I go mountain hiking tomorrow in the Olympics. In which case I can’t promise anything before Sunday.)
But thanks for the link to the review!

First, I’ve got to disassociate myself from the reductionism school of biology and Darwinian evolution that hatched the ‘meme equals gene’ metaphor – and then immediately chose to forget that it’s a METAPHOR, and not ‘real’!

That said, I think the ‘meme’ idea is a plausible lens for better understanding the evolution of ideas. And so, borrowing heavily from non-reductionist biologists (who would surely disavow my well-intended efforts) here’s (first) how ‘genes’ actually work in biology and evolution (bolded emphases mine):

(quote)
Genes are so battered, misunderstood and abused that I make no apologies for starting from the beginning with genetic material. Genes are not self-replicating entities; they are not units of function; and they are not units of instruction. They are modular in construction and history; invariably redundant; each involved in a multitude of functions; and misbehave in a bizarre range of ways. They coevolve intimately and interactively with each other through their protein and RNA products. They have no meaning outside their interactions, with regard to any adaptive feature of an individual: There are no one-to-one links between genes and complex traits. Genes are the units of inheritance but not the units of evolution: I shall argue that there are no ‘units’ of evolution as such because all units are constantly changing. They are intimately involved with the evolution of biological functions, but evolution is not about the natural selection of ‘selfish’ genes.
(unquote) – Gabriel Dover, Alas, Poor Darwin, (pg.56); Harmony/Random House; 2000: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609605135/103-2529961-0019026?v=glance&n=283155

The second of the two bolded quotations is the most important. This authentic biologist’s understanding of ‘gene’ (which is in truth an arbitrary early 20th century concept that has no tangible physical ‘reality’ as such) is better explained in a metaphor within Steven Rose’s Lifelines: Life Beyond the Gene ( http://www.powells.com/biblio/65-0195150392-0 & http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195150392/sr=1-3/qid=1155879389/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-2529961-0019026?ie=UTF8&s=books ) that that compares the reductionist misunderstanding of ‘genes’ to a “digital information metaphor�, and then expounds:
(quote)
In the digital information metaphor, these cellular mechanisms play no part in the creation of this symphony (of an organism’s actual biological development). They are as dumb as the mechanism by which a cassette player converts the trace on a magnetic tape into a Beethoven violin concerto or a Miles Davis jazz track. All that the tape head and the speakers do is to follow the instructions given by the tape. They can influence the quality and fidelity of the sound that is emitted, but they don’t carry information. They symphony remains in the DNA. But this is not how cells work. Unlike the cassette player, they (the developing organism’s “cellular mechanisms�) don’t merely play their ‘tape’ at constant speed and hang the consequences. They instruct the tape as to which bits to play and when to play them, and they also edit the output. And of course, also quite unlike the cassette player, they continuously reconstruct themselves throughout the cell cycle and the lifetime of the organism they comprise. In so far as the (digital) information metaphor is valid at all, it can be expressed only in the dynamic interaction – the dialectic, therefore – between DNA and the cellular system in which it is embedded. Cells make their own lifelines.
(unquote)

Likewise: “Brains make (adapt) their own ‘memes’.�
Furthermore: “The human brain/mind that hosts the ‘meme’ isn’t the ‘tool’ of the meme’s reproduction. Instead it ‘instructs’ the ‘meme’ as to which bits to play and when to play them, and (it) also edits the output. And of course, also quite unlike the cassette player, (it) continuously restructures its content throughout the meme’s ‘playback’ cycle. In so far as the (digital) information metaphor is valid at all, it can be expressed only in the dynamic interaction – the dialectic, therefore – between the meme and the brain in which it is embedded.�

By this reckoning of the phantasmic ‘gene’ (that seems to have only a metaphoric ‘existence’ in the interaction between DNA [and its RNA] and the organism’s cellular processes), the ‘meme’ doesn’t ‘dictate’ instructions to the hosting mind. It interacts with it. The hosting mind accepts and modifies the ‘meme’ as best suits the organism’s (lifeline’s) purposes. This, to my unruly agglomeration of plauses, makes the ‘meme’ a fine and even excellent metaphor for understanding the evolution and spread of ideas.

So: Mohamed accepted the Abrahamic-faith meme already extant in 7th century Arabia. His mind modified it to best suit the decaying tribal ethos of his people, and combined it with (then contemporary) medieval Arabian culture. This memetic adaptation included the subjugation of women – despite his first wife (older than he) being the owner and operator of an international trading company – and this memetic evolution made sure to ‘sanctify’ this evolution. Similar ratiocinations can be understood as ‘memetic’ evolutions protecting the ‘revelations’ from threat of disconfirmation (hypnogogic hallucinations explained as ‘Divine Visitations’ – disbelief in which gets your memes killed off – by the death of your brain!), and this then logically extends to the ‘divine instruction’ of killing all the unbelievers (if they won’t convert to Islam).

Now, it’s perfectly true that medieval Christianity offers the same sots of memetic evolutions (Crusades and Inquisitions – not to mention pogroms and more), but medieval Christianity isn’t (yet!) threatening its billions of disbelievers with nuclear annihilation. Which makes Silvio’s 10:33 PM a post worthy of pondering.

PS: Silvio, just before posting this, I see your latest (two) (12:03 & 12:06). I hope this post’s use of non-reductionist sources answers some of the issues raised by the (probably justified) review of Dennett you cite – which I will read as soon as I post this!