8 Jan 2008

2. the butter has all gone
(or) replying to the inevitable; oh those facts of contrition'...*.

We appreciate your more measured and professional tone. It would have been more constructive and a nicer experience if you had employed that throughout. We always meet terseness with terseness, but prefer to engage upon more respectful ground. Weird to us that you, calling yourself *, are nonetheless myspacing under the name, *. We're assuming you have his sanction, of course; but, until you signed your third (was it?) message with your actual name, we were not sure and could not be sure, who you were. Use of the name, *, hardly helps things, we realise; but it does at least introduce the idea that you might not be *. Sorry, but once again you seem to be making assumptions about us, and employing them in your arguments and reactions. We are nice people; it is just that we are committed to debate; we are made that way. Practicality does not come into it for us. We see what we regard as illogic etc. and we engage. It was you who propelled the exchanges, we would say - insofar as you kept coming back to us, even though we said we were not interested in * and do not like what he stands for. By this, we do not mean his stance on military spending or current government policy. We mean his duplicity. You might argue he is a best hope figure; better than some. But we are not charmed by the politics of pragmatism and utility, you see. If * really is opposed to what he says he is opposed to, he needs to get his moral house in order, we feel. If you do not, as you say, have 'the time and resources to respond in due measure to each of [our] comments', then why keep coming back to us with partial and underexplained utterances? Better to make one point in meaningful fashion. We, too, have lots of things we must do. But we are idealistic enough to engage in debate where and when it occurs and we are respectful enough to give those prompting debate our time and efforts. Madness we know. Regarding reading list - great that you appreciate the suggestions. But all we were saying is read around the subject. We are now supposing you might be at university, doing a degree in political science or some such like. If so, good luck. No sinister insult intended if you are not at university. We are all still learning. Books do not have all the answers - as is obvious. But one can lose sight of that. We have found more warmth of humanity and more ideas in a great novel than in most text books. But that is our experience. You must find your own. A great man said to us once - it is important to have suppleness of mind. Exactly so. Your comment viz the 4th World War was aimed satirically at us. But let us let the point go. We agree - we said we agreed; it is an apocalyptic time, we are in some kind of war, yes. That old easily-understandable binary - hot war / cold war - has fallen away. People prefer black and white, of course. But it's all grey now; and that is so much weirder and more frightening. It's complex - but, to cut to the chase, the enemy is still the old enemy: that corpus of exploitation, self-interest, lies, expediency etc. called business, or capitalism, whatever, take your pick. There are those who are willing to do this nasty, shadowy stuff to others for personal gain. They might dress it up in fancy institutions, give it fancy names, make conspicuous donations to charities, dress the right way, go to the right parties, etc., but they are just people who are willing to exploit, lie, murder, etc. We cannot enter that game and will not enter it. As far as one can in UK, the West, under capitalism etc. we live a good life of not hurting others, of being kind, helpful, of not taking too much, of not being indulgent and excessive in our habits. Our central point remains, * - in advocating *, what are you really advocating? Politics is a dirty business. Take care....'. posted by murmurists at 12:27 PM 4 comments

1. the butter has all gone
(or) ebb-tide... moon in uranus*.

Our 'appraisal', as you term it, of our exchanges was and is representative. Like a lot of people who feel they possess the weapons of theory and a willingness to use them on some pet-cause, you plump for rhetoric when reciprocity is what is needed. If you are serious about some kind of career or career-hobby in politics, then employ all that reading to enable your ears as well as your tongue. Evidence speaks for itself - nowhere in your mails did you debate the points we raised. In contrast, we met each of your points in turn, telling you why we believe your campaign for * is folly. Re-read the exchanges. We can send them back to you if you like. At no time do you seriously or meaningfully meet our questions. That's just fact. Good that you have added Schrumpeter to your reading list. That does you credit. His 'committe' analysis is the problem in a nutshell; and flags up the inherent deception of politicans, politics itself, and what gets termed democracy but isn't. May we suggest you also add, say, David Harvey, Jurgen Habermas - obvious enough; but read somewhat around the subject, too, by adding Jacques Derrida's 'The Post Card', for its 'envois', and Charles Harrison's essay (as Art and Language), included in Frascina (ed.) Pollock and After: the Critical Debate, for its discussion of the so-called 'Trobriand Island problem'. Read Camus, also - 'The Outsider', 'The Plague'. Go see the Gilbert & George exhibition at Tate Modern. The answers are as much there as they are in books formally about politics, we feel. To be clear, too, we are not formulating a recipe for inertia. Your quip about waiting for a 4th World War is as cheap as it is immature. You like to finish your messages with a cheap-shot - a common enough but tiresome ploy to gain reaction. Trouble is, it is the wrong kind of reaction, and is worse than useless; just as destructive, generalising, and idiotic as dropping those bombs on strangers you say you are dead set against. Your caricaturing us; reducing us to an abstraction, which suits the pursuit of your campaign; or so you believe. In spirit, you are just as colonial and self-interested as those you criticise. Can you not see this? You do not know us; and you will not know us. The image you have of us is all projection, flawed contingency. Thanks for the links you sent, but we will not be clicking on them. Tell us, does the 'abundant information' on * include his business interests, or how much time he spends with the poor vs how much time he spends with businessmen, etc.? We have commited no such sins; yet, at a distance and just because we disagree with you, you demonise us. In contrast, you are willing to attach your name to all kinds of dodgy systems. Before you dedicate your time to working for the man we suggest you do a moral audit of the man himself. You might not like what you find. posted by murmurists at 9:59 AM 0 comments

No comments: