--- Begin Message ---
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:34:45 EST
I've thought the same. However. I have to take a page from my own
personality -- whatever position the person I'm talking with is taking, I play
devil's advocate -- not really because I want to argue, or be disingenuous, or
even
necessarily disagree. But to test my position out. To try it and see how
it stands up. Because rubbing rough stones against one another eventually
develops smooth areas that fit into one another, that in standing up and
pushing
hard against an idea I can test my own idea's mettle; strengthen it or
realize it is not strong enough, I might be able to arrive at a truth. Not
The
Truth. But a truth. Devil's advocate has long been my strongest way to sort
the wheat from the chaff of my own ideas. What is left standing after the
push
against the other is worthy of re-examination. I have assionately argued
equally for/against different religions, ideologies, perspectives, hey -- even
types of art, poetry, literature -- to see what stands up to strong
questioning. I think that's a large part of the function that dialogue
serves. To
find out what ideas/thoughts are strong enough to withstand the inquiries and
challenges and questions. If you find a few core things in all of that, you
are lucky. No, blessed. I don't subscribe to a needlepoint list-serve,
because it does not afford me the opportunity to engage people who will
challenge my thinking, and whose thinking I can perhaps challenge, or at least
question. W/out disagreement (even with one's self, yes!) little or no growth
can
happen.
Waxing, waning, ending a fully joyous and fully exhausting weekend with my
13 year old.
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: New Politics
Magazine Date: 2/25/2007 12:54:28 P.M. Central Standard Time From:
_sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
There are, I've decided, two different Lawrences: one here and one in
'another place'. Here, our Lawrence is unequivocal, the war is against Islam
because the moderates (or traditionalists) are 'semi mythical'. Over there,
their
Lawrence appears to be nuanced and the moderates (or traditionalists) are the
ones that should be approached by western scholars with a view to steering
them away from the fundamentalists.
Now this is interesting to say the least. Perhaps it's because Lawrence is a
hypocrite, or perhaps it's also because he's writing for a different
audience. Is it because in both places he's after an argument?
And what does that make him?
Of course, he might just attempt to reconcile these two different psyches.
And that would be really interesting...
----- Original Message -----
From: _Lawrence Helm_ (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
To: _Lit-Ideas_ (mailto:Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 6:30 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] New Politics Magazine
I was mildly interested in Omar’s “New Politics” article. I dismissed
the
Marxist when I considered political paradigms for explaining the current
state of the world. I’m surprised there are still some left (so to speak).
But here they are, their home page, with the raised Socialist fist:
_http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/_ (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/)
Here is how they describe themselves:
_http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/whoweare.htm_
(http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/whoweare.htm)
Notice that they trace themselves back to 1961 and their founder Julius
Jacobson: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Politics_(magazine)_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Politics_(magazine))
This is Julius Jacobson: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Jacobson_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Jacobson)
The Mathew Lyons article posted by Omar entitled “Is the Bush Administration
Fascist?” presents the anti-American Socialistic/Communistic view I am
familiar with that Judy declares to be political and not economic (I oppose
the
political and am not interested in the economic Marxist position; so let’s
not
get into that again).
Notice that there is no credence given to the enemy being real. The
implication is that American leadership used 9/11 as an opportunity and the
Terrorists as scapegoats. I am almost nostalgic for this bizarre surrealism.
I wasn’
t at all surprised that Irene was delighted with the article and declared it
to be describing just the way she thought. There are no enemy Islamists, no
terrorists worth mentioning, and the few that exist are scapegoats. There
is just the burgeoning Imperialistic Capitalistic Swine grasping for more and
more. The invaded Iraq for their oil, oil, oil.
Notice the Lyon’s unstated assumptions which are not difficult to discover.
I wonder if John McCreery appreciates the New Politics position. They are
after all committed to “Workers” just as John is. I suspect Omar is not
really committed to the New Politics position and that he was just cherry
picking anti-American articles. But both would rather talk about bad old
America
than the 300 million Islamic Fundamentalists who share the view that Islam
should advance over the rest of the world and its okay if martyrs blow
themselves up in the process. It is good to kill the infidel. Not all 300
million
are willing to kill infidels, but they sympathize with those who are and agree
with their ideology.
300 million is the estimate scholars use as the number of Islamic
Fundamentalists embracing the ideology of Sayyid Qutb and his ilk. 300
million is also
the number of Americans in America – the primary group that is interested
in opposing the Fundamentalists. Each 300 million has its nay-sayers. In the
Middle East it is the semi-mythical Traditionalists. Over in the West it is
all those Leftists who wish the US had become a Welfare State like Europe
and now wish that the Islamists would defeat the Bush Administration (and who
cares if they defeat the U.S. in the process) to give it its come-uppance and
make it easier for Democratic Leftists to do some really good things in
government like turn the U.S. into a Welfare State and let all those Islamists
do
anything they like because no Leftist government is going to get in their
way.
Lawrence
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
--- End Message ---
