Conceptions of Reality. An Introduction.
Prologue, sort of:
Some people are willing to accept whatever they have been taught.
Everything in their world seems to be clear and devoid of ambiguity.
They don't seem to be affected or troubled by inconsistencies or even
lack of logic. Other people are restless. They are forever on a quest for order, coherence, and meaning. The world seems to them in chaos and in confusion. Yet they are driven to make sense of the world. The following are notes taken in an effort to understand the world. They are taken verbatim mostly from a book which is slim but surprisingly fecund. I found it not easy to understand the book, maybe due to its conciseness, not because of the turgidity of the author's prose or the turbidity of his thoughts. I decided to copy down the words so I could follow the thoughts. Some are from Will Durant whose witty and incisive comments are almost impossible to paraphrase. Occasionally, I jump in and say something and the reader would see right away which words are mine due to my predilection for florid and repetitive expressions. All these notes are primarily for my own consumption, a crude way of educating myself. If you happen to read them, that meant I gave in to the need of sharing and interacting. I could not tolerate loneliness and selfishness anymore.
As I get older and nearer the demise of my life, I feel acutely more than ever the need to synthesize, even to pontificate. However, I am aware that there is nothing sadder and funnier than a spectacle of an old fool raving and ranting. He is losing perspective. He is becoming ossified instead of flexible and supple in his thinking. He is trying to cling to his fanciful self-conception of dignity, even reality. Few old people are willing to learn. It's not easy to teach new tricks to an old dog. Maybe I am such an old fool. Maybe I am not. Maybe I am just a crazy dog which loves to bark to get my daily fix of attention. I don't know. Too many "maybes".
"Life has meaning. To find its meaning is my meat and drink." Browning.
So much of our lives is meaningless, a self-cancelling vacillation and futility. We strive with the chaos about us and within us. But we believe that there is something significant and beautiful in us, could
we but decipher our souls. We want to understand. We want to know.
Truth may not make us rich, but it will make us free. Such is our conviction. That's why we talk and think philosophy. That's why we know we are different than most. We have intellectual and thus moral courage. We prefer light, even glaring light, to darkness, no matter how comforting and assuring and familiar darkness can be.
I am reading three books at the same time. A bad sign. Bill Clinton has the same habit. I cannot stay at one thought, ploddingly pursuing a linear thought to its conclusion. I like associations and interactions of thoughts. I like to jump around, trying to find unity in plurality, like my own idea that life, the universe itself, is the manifestation of energy in different forms/stages; like in every man, woman, and child there is a powerful need to feel that one is not worthless and that most, if not all, of the behavior of a human is the manifestation of that need, the drive for significance once the basic biological needs are met. There is a restless drive for being the best, if not better than most, in a given field. Thus, the fall from grace of Tiger Woods and his swift loss of commercial endorsements are subjects worthy of pondering. The hubris of thinking that he could cheat his wife, not with one woman, but with many--with one, he could be condoned that he did that out of "love", and not paying a price for it. Everything has a price. Every action has a reaction. Communism in Vietnam will fall. The question is when. Practices which are against reason, against moderation, against morality cannot last. Human history has shown that.
Philosophy includes five fields of study and discourse: logic, aesthetics, ethics, politics, and metaphysics. Metaphysics gets into so much controversy and bloodshed because it is not, like other forms of philosophy, an attempt to coordinate the real in the light of the ideal. Instead, it is the study of "ultimate reality" of all things: of the real and final nature of "matter" (ontology), of "mind" (philosophical psychology), and of the interrelation of "mind" and "matter" in the processses of perception and knowledge
(epistemology). Now, you perhaps wonder why a "mind" like that of Nguyen Huu Liem who has a law degree and a Master degree in philosophy, and teaches philosophy in a community college, fails to
recognize the realities of the evil of communism as practiced by the
VCP. I have written a scathing review of NHL's servile, slavish report of the "grand" conference of Viet Kieu held in Hanoi in November of 2009. People like NHL give law yers and philosophers a bad name. They are supposed to think in a logical fashion, but alas too often they let base emotions like greed and desire for fame and glory override their intellect, making a crude, cunning Philistine like Mao who knew too well the timidity and cowardice of some intellectuals to the point that he dared to make a remark that intellectuals were not worth as much as shit. Precisely the behavior of cowards and bootlickers like NHL and his ilk invited such a contempt from a son of a peasant farmer like Mao. On the other hand, we have lawyer heroes like Le Cong Dinh and Le Thi Cong Nhan who stuck their necks out in an effort to save Vietnam. In the end, one cannot learn and acquire courage and good character at school. One was born with those qualities and or instilled at an early age in proper family upbringing. So, when a person blindly worships and defends the VCP despite all the overwhelming evidence that the behavior of the VCP is evil and contrary to the interests of Vietnam, that person invites not only the cursing and contempt upon himself, but also upon his parents.
PART ONE: THE GENEALOGY OF MODERN ART
Modern art is not a confirmation of modernity but an articulation of its limits.
Avant-garde modern art which supposedly begins with Picasso's
Demoiselles d'Avigon can be seen as originating in protest and
reaction against the unlimited totalizing project of modern rationalism.
Orthodoxy is a Christian, originally Platonic, term meaning "correct belief," as opposed to heterodoxy, literally "other belief," and,
worse, "heresy." Heresy, a Greek word meaning "choice," soon took on a
negative connotation and was specialized to mean "wrong choice."
What’s Modern? The Shock of the Old
Modern comes from the Latin word modo, meaning “just now”. Since when have we been modern/ For a surprisingly long time, as the following example shows.
Around 1127, the Abbot Suger began constructing his abbey basilica of St. Denis in Paris. His architectural ideas resulted in something never seen before, a “new look” neither classically Greek nor Roman nor Romanesque.
Suger didn’t know what to call it, so he fell back on the Latin, opus modernum. A modern work. Suger helped to inaugurate an immensely influential architectural style which became known as the Gothic. Gothic was in fact a term of abusxe, coined by Italian Renaissance theorists, meaning a northern or German barbaric style. The ideal style of Renaissance architects and artists was the classical Greek, or what they called the antica e buena maniera moderna---the ancient and good modern style.
Ever since then, architects have been arguing about what represents a perennial style---classical, gothic, modern or even postmodern.
Dialectial Antagonism
At least since medieval times, there has been a motivating sense of antagonism between ‘then” and “now”, between ancient and modern. Historical periods in the West have followed one another in disaffinity with what has gone before. The result of this historical dialectic (from the Greek, debate or discourse) is that Western culture recognizes no single tradition. History is carved up into conceptual periods: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Romantic, and so on.
Another peculiarity of Western culture is its strongly historical bias, a belief that history determines the way things are and must be.
Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism provided the basic historicist formula. Marxism established a structural difference between society’s traditional or cultural institutions and its economic productive forces. Rapid-paced progress occurs in the infrastructutr, the economic sphere of productive activities which supports but also subverts the superstructure, the social sphere of ideology which includes religion, art, politics, law and all traditional attitudes. The superstructure evolves more slowly and is more resistant to change than the economic infrastructure.
What is Modernism?
The Marxian formula is still useful for understanding the different speed-lanes of change in the traditional and productive spheres of society.
Modernism, in the infrastructural productive sense, begins in the 1890’s and 1900’s, a time which experienced mass technological innovations, the second tidal wave of the Industrial Revolution began nearly a century before.
Modernism in the cultural or superstructural sense occupies the same period in the early 1900’s---the first phase of modernist experimentation in literature, music, the visual arts and architecture. Some art historians have argued, to an extent correctly, that the invention of photography ended the authority of painting to reproduce reality. Technological innovation in the infrastructure had outstripped the superstructural traditions of visual art. The doctrine of realism itself was coming to an end. Realism depends on a mirror theory of knowledge, essentially that the mind is a mirror of reality. Objects existing outside the mind can be represented (reproduced by a concept or work of art) in a way that is adequate, accurate, and true.
Paul Cezanne 91839-1906) did not scrap realism but revised it to include uncertainty in our perception of things. Representation had to account for the effect of interaction between seeing and the object, the variations of viewpoint and possibilities of doubt in what one sees. We don’t see things as fixed but as shifting. A tree changes if my gaze slightly shifts. Cezanne had taken a revolutionary new direction, painting not reality but the effect of perceiving it.
Cubism
Cubism, unleashed by Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon, was then
developed by him, Georges Braque and others between 1907 and 1914. A
typical Cubist painting, Picasso's Girl with a Mandolin (1910), takes Cezanne's theories of variability and stability to an outstanding
logical conclusion. The human figure simplified to geometry,
interacting on a par with the space around it and treated lime
architecture, might be said to be dehumanized. Cubism agreed with
modern physics in rejecting the notion of a single isolatable event---
the view contains the viewer. This is not necessarily a dehumanizing
limit but a recognition that the human is non-exceptional to reality.
"Reproducible reality" was left to photography, while art took a
quantum leap in a new Cubist tradition. Cubism rescued art from obsolescence and re-established its authority to represent reality in a way that photography could not. But photography threatened both traditional and avant-garde art in another sense not recognized until layer, in 1936, when the Marxist critic Walter Benjamin published his essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He said the authority or autonomy of original works of art derived from their unreproducibility---except as fakes---which gives them a magical aura, a charismatic halo which surrounds authentic art objects because they are unique, irreplaceable
and hence priceless. Benjamin argued that this aura---this fetish of sacred uniqueness---would be eliminated by mass reproduction.
Modern is Postmodern
The modern is always historically at war with what comes immediately
before it.
Machine-Aesthetic Optimism
The paintings of Piet Mondrian (1872-1944) show clearly the radical modernist evolution of a tree from representation to minimal pure abstraction.
Mondrian, a member of the zutch De Stijl group, shared an ambition with many other artists from different but parallel schools---Cubism, the Weimar Bauhaus, Italian Futurism, Russian Constructivism, and other varieties. They all embraced what is loosely called a machine aesthetic, an optimistic belief in the role of abstraction in human life and an emphasis on machine-like, undecorated flat surfaces. Their aim was to form a universally applicable "modern style", reproducible anywhere, transcending all national cultures. The modern architecture we are most familiar with (and which is most condemned nowadays by postmodernists) grew out of these trends and was rightly named the International style. Its most notorious practitioners were Miles van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, and Le Corbusier
Cubism in Russia advanced towards Constructivism (1914-1920), the
abandonment of easel painting in favor of kinetic artvand technical
design applied to typography, architecture, and industrial production.
In the 1930's era of Stalinism, Constructivism was suppressed as un-
Marxist "formalism". The official party-line adopted a propaganda style of heroic realism, named socialist realism. Utopianism modernism which had aimed at being internationally reproducible was rejected in favor of a realism "comprehensible" to the masses and a reproducible
model for other countries aspiring to Communism.
Also in the 1930's, totalitarian Nazi Germany prohibited modern art as
decadent, non-Aryan, and sub-human. Aix of saccharine soft porn and
heroic realism became the dogma.
Totalitarian art, with its re-institution of realism, had the post-war effect of confirming modernist abstracting as the alternative style of the democratic free world and put the last nail in realism's coffin.
Hardly surprisingly, America turned to its own domestic breed of emerging abstract art for this confirmation, which it christened Abstract Expressionism in 1946. Jackson Pollack (1912-1956) stands as the archetypal hero and tragic victim of AE. JP and his fellow artists viewed their art as emotionally charged with meaning. He and quite a few number of his school fell victim to alcoholism, premature death, and suicide.
Dadaism
Surrealism, one of Pollock's sources, was the successor movement to Dadaism (1916-24). Dadaism upsets the notion that early modernist art was entirely optimistic. Born screaming out of the mouths of Hugo Ball, Tristan Tzara, and others at the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich, 1916, it raged briefly as an international wildfire. It was, and with surprising durability, remains vitally influential. Dada means nothing, a close relative of Nada, a meaningful nothing when nothing has any meaning. Dadaism arose in nihilist protest to the mechanized assembly-line slaughter of WW I---the last war ever to be fought between imperial dynasties and the first to exploit modern technology: machine guns, poison gas, tanks, and airplanes.
Dadaism was a temporary meeting-point for some of modernism's pioneering artists: Hans Arp, Max Ernst, Francis Picabia, Marcel Duchamp, and Kurt Schwitters.
Dadaism was crucially important in releasing or unleashing automatism, a junking of all traditional rules of art in favor of chance as the direct access to the unconscious. Pollock's drip action paintings closely answer to the prescription of automatism later theorized by Surrealism.
Duchamp was the first to realize that any "readymade" non-art object on its own could be displayed as "art" if dissociated from its original context, use, and meaning. His best known examples of readymade art are Bottleneck (1914) and a porcelain Urinal (1917). Duchamp's installation of the readymade had the effect of radically upgrading the power of display. Installation shifts the empowerment of the aura from the object to the place, in other words, the gallery or museum.
The Pope of Pop Art
Andy Warhol (1930-1987) turned mechanical reproduction into art by tranferring a photo image to a silkscreen which is laid on the canvas and inked from the back. The only slight "human" touch in this Andycraft is an overlay of crudely applied synthetic color.
Other artworks followed: banal replications of Campbell's soup cans
vie with images of deep-down morbidity---Marilyn Monroe after her suicide, Jackie after JFK's assassination, mug shots of hoodlums, car
accidents, the e tric chair, gangster funerals, and race riots.
Under Warhol's treatment, aesthetics turns into anaesthetics. Hard to
tell with Andy whether he's super-cool, prodigiously voyeuristic, or just simply brain dead. And the look goes back to the looker, Andy
himself, narcissistic, aristocratic, impleccably poker-faced boredom.
Duchamp complained that the works of artists like Warhol hijacked his
brand of reproducibility which was unique and not reproducible.
We've attempted to trace the "past" modern genealogy of postmodernism, but have we arrived at "present" postmodernism. For instance, is mimimalism postmodern? Carl Andre's 120 Fire-Bricks (1968) at the Tate Gallery offered a notorious example.
Minimal art eliminated all elements of expressiveness, which leaves the aesthetic process itself (or what was left of it) on the shrinking borderline of non-art. Minimalism isn't properly postmodern because it is still absorbed in modernist experimentation initiated by forerunners like Kasimir Malevich.
Conceptual art (also in the 1960's) went further and threw out the aesthetic process altogether. "Art" itself was refuted as contaminated by the elitism and crass marketing of the art world. Pierrot Manzoni (1933-63) typified the movement when he canned his own shit and sold it, labelled 100% Pure Artist's Shit.
Conceptualization still manifested itself in the 1990's with "anti-
art" scandals, such as Damien Hirst's exhibit of a dead sheep in an aquarium of formaldehyde (1994) , or sculptures in the artists' own
blood or urine.
Conceptualism is not postmodern because its use of eccentric materials
has been foreseen by Kurt Schwitters' Merz rubbish sculptures.
From the early 1900's to the 1970's, art underwent rapid modernizing changes without precedent in Western History. There have been three fundamental stages in modernism's progress, from crisis in the
representation of reality to the representation of the unpresentable,
and finally non-presentation. In terms of the Marxist formula, it would
seem that the superstructural traditions of art have shed themselves in the effort to keep up with modernity's structural advances in technology. To put it simply, art vanishes in its quest for originality.
The more experimentation successfully proceeds to diminish the aura and autonomy of art, the more aura and autonomy become the exclusive
properties of exhibitive power---the critical establishment, curators,
art-dealers and their clients.
PART TWO: THE GENEALOGY OF POSTMODERN THEORY (PMT)
Postmodern theory is a consequence of 20th preoccupation with
language. The most important thinkers of the century---Russell,
Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and others---shifted their focus of analysis
away from ideas in the mind to the language in which thinking is
expressed.
If meaning comes from language, where does language come from?
Forget the origin of language. You'll find the meaning of language in
its function as a system. PMT has its roots in one school of formal
linguistics, structuralism, chiefly founded by Ferdinand de Saussure,
a Swiss professor of linguistics.
Structuralism
Linguistics before Saussure tended to get bogged down in the search for the historical origins of language which would reveal meaning.
Saussure instead viewed the meaning of language as the function of a system. He stated we needed to separate language as a system (la langue) (synchronic) from its actual manifestations in speech or
writing ( la parole) (diachronic). The analysis involves:
---Looking for the underlying rules and conventions that enable
language to operate.
---Analyzing the social and collective dimension of language rather than individual speech.
---Studying grammar rather than usage, rules rather expressions, models rather than data.
---Finding the infrastructure of language common to all speakers on an unconscious level. This is "the deep structure" which need not refer to historical evolution. Structuralism examines the synchronic (existing now) rather than the diachronic (existing and changing over time).
Meanings and Signs
In Saussure's view, the entire set of linguistic meanings (whether past, present, or future)?is effectively generated from a very small
set of possible sounds or phonemes. A phoneme is the smallest unit in the sound system that can indicate contrasts in meaning. The word cat
has three phonemes: /c/, /a/, /t/, which differ minimally from mat,
cot, cap, etc., each generating other meanings that combined
grammatically and syntactically can produ e extended speech or
discourse, the code of language used to express personal thought.
A distinction is made between significant units (words, or monemes,
each one endowed with one "value") and distinctive units (sounds, or phonemes, part of the form but with no direct "value")
In morpheme-based morphology, a morpheme is the smallest linguistic unit that has semantic meaning. In spoken language, morphemes are composed of phonemes (the smallest linguistically distinctive units of sound), and in written language morphemes are composed of graphemes (the smallest units of written language).
The concept morpheme differs from the concept word, as many morphemes
cannot stand as words on their own. A morpheme is free if it can stand
alone, or bound if it is used exclusively alongside a free morpheme.
Its actual phonetic representation is the morph, with the different
morphs representing the same morpheme being grouped as its allomorphs.
English example:
The word "unbreakable" has three morphemes: "un-", a bound morpheme;
"break", a free morpheme; and "-able", a bound morpheme. "un-" is also a prefix, "-able" is a suffix. Both "un-" and "-able" are affixes.
The morpheme plural-s has the morph "-s", /s/, in cats (/kæts/), but "-
es", /ɨz/, in dishes (/dɪʃɨz/), and even the voiced "-s", /z/, in
dogs (/dogz/). "-s". These are allomorphs.
Note the extreme economy of human language: with only 21 distinctive units, American Spanish can produce 100,000 significant units.
Signification
Saussure proposed that within the language, the signifier (e.g., the word or acoustic image, ox) is that which carries meaning, and the signified (the concept, ox) is that to which it refers. Signifier and signified together make up a sign. Signification is the process which binds together signifier and signified to produce the sign. A sign must be understood as a relation to produce a sign. A sign must be understood as a relation which has no meaning outside the system of signification. The choice of sound is not imposed on us by meaning itself (the animal ox does not determine the sound ox---the sound is different in different languages: ox in English, bue in Italian).
The association of sound and what it represents is the outcome of collective learning (used in social practice, or what Wittgenstein calls "language games") and this is signification. Meaning is therefore the product of a system of representation which is itself
meaningless.
Binary model
Saussure bequeathed a decisive binary model to PMT. Language is a sign system that functions by an operational code of binary oppositions. We have seen one binary opposition: Sr/Sd. Another crucial binary opposition is syntagma/paradigm, which operates as follows:
Syntagmatic series (also called contiguity or combination): the linear
relationships between linguistic elements in a sentence.
Ex: He shut the door
Paradigmatic series (also called selection or substitution): the
relationship between element within a sentence and other elements
which are syntactically interchangeable
Ex: He shut door
She closed window
This binary contrast of combination and substitution generates higher
degrees of complexity and account for the imaginative or symbolic use
of language: the possibility of meaningful fictions:
Syntagmatic combination involves a perception of contiguity which can
generate
Metonymy (naming an attribute or adjunct of the thing instead of the
thing itself: crown for royalty
Synecdoche (naming the part for the whole: keels for ships)
Paradigmatic substitution involves a perception of similarity which
can generate
Metaphor: a tower of strength, a glaring error: descriptions which are
not literally true.
Roman Jakobson (1895-1982), a Russian-born linguist, applied Saussure's binary model to aphasia, a severe speech disorder caused by brain damage. Jakobson identified 2 distinct kinds of aphasic disturbance
Aphasics who suffer from (paradigmatic) substitution deficiency will resort to metonymic expressions: when asked to identify "black", the patient may respond "black".
Those deficient in (syntagmatic) combination are confined to using smilarity or metaphor.
In traditional literary criticism, metaphor and metonymy had always been thought of as related figures of speech. They are not related but opposed. The consequences of this is extended discourses in which either the metaphoric (paradigmatic/substitutution/selection)
(poetry) or metonymic (syntagmatic/combination/contiguity) order
predominates
Semiotics (semiology)
Saussure and Jakobson's binary order has applicatonns that extend into
other "discourses" besides the text, and this is the domain of
semiotics (from the Greek semeion, a mark, sign, trace or omen).
Saussure opened the way to analyzing culture itself as a system of
signs by proposing that structural linguistics was part of semiotics,
a general science if signs which studies the various systems of
cultural conventions which enable human actions to signify meaning and
hence become signs.
Structural Anthropology
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009), following Saussure and the Slavic linguists Jakobson and N.S. Trubetzkoy, developed structural anthropology in the late 1950's which systematized a semiotics of
culture. Anthropology is a cultural model for understanding how the
human mind universally functions. At this time in the 1950's, the binary code had been applied in cybernatics and the rapid development of digital computers. This technological binarism--the digitalized aspect of information theory--influenced LS towards a mechanical
theory of communication.
Language is the system that permits thinking. Thinking is the "system-
output" that occurs in the interaction between human subjects (situated within culture) and the environment (nature) which is the
object of thinking.
Binarism
Nature<----------------------->Culture
(non-human) (human)
Thinking can therefore occur because language allows us (1) to form
social relationships and (2) to categorize our environment as
represented by symbols.
Among many primitive peoples it is the custom for each tribe or family to adopt some object from Nature as their special symbol, or totem.
This totem may be an animal or plant, or a carving in wood or stone, and is supposed to be helpful to the tribe it represents. Tribes which have an animal totem will never kill that special animal. Totemism is not some primitive bizarre superstition, but a basic instance of logic. It is thinking.
Totems see categories that specify (divide up) what is "out there" as symbols for thinking, in other words, binary classifications.
What can or cannot be eaten (and why).
Who can or cannot be married (and shy).
Thinking in this sense is literally (re)producing society.
How is the binarism human/non-human reflected in totemism?
Tribal societies apply substitutions (metaphors) and combinations (metonyms) to "think" about non-human nature. Animals and vegetables are simply things to eat but are read as codes that link nature to
human society by way of the "higher" (non-human) gods. This is a code-
chain that runs two ways.
The human mind functions in model binary sets: noise/silence, raw/
cooked, naked/clothed, light/darkness, sacred/profane and so on.
The mind works logically (that is culturally) unconsciously to duplicate nature. Example: why have we chosen the cora green, yellow, and red for our traffic- light sign system?
Because our color code signals for Go-Caution-Stop mimic the same structure in nature.
Critique of Structuralism
1. Dematerialization and formalism
Saussure's deep structures have nothing to with the Freudian unconscious. Structural analysis is an abstract "surface" reading as opposed to a Marxist or Freudian "deep" reading which thinks in terms of symptoms--origins, causes, and cures.
Although Jakobson does not deny the material (neurogical) origin and reality of aphasia, his analysis seems to de-materialize and formalize it.
S opens out a formal area of inquiry, a non-dimensional space of abstraction, which seems to resemble philosophy ("thinking about thinking") and its exclusive reliance on the rules of reasoning to arrive at a general picture of the world.
2. Formalizing the human
In "I think therefore I am", the "I" is a language fiction, signified by use, not meaning, and generated in much the same way as metaphor or metonymy.
S is unhelpful in explaining what motivates the language-using subject, i.e., the speaker.
3. Non- historical
S's analysis is valid (in principle) no matter what is historically present.
Post-structuralism
In the middle of 1960's, Roland Barthes came up with the overlap of S and the post-structuralist second thoughts. Linguistics is not part of semiotics, a science of signs; it's the way around. Barthes is saying that semiological analysis collapses back into language, a forerunner of Baudrillard's more radical notion of "art totally penetrating reality", of the border between art and reality vanishing as the two
collapse into the universal simulacrum. A collapse into total semblance.
The Death of the Author
In 1967, B caused a sensation by proclaiming that readers create their own meanings, regardless of the author's intentions
Writing: Degree Zero
You can read a text for pleasure and sense, but you're finally left with a sense of enigma, a final sense which the text doesn't express or refuses to surrende--a sort of unyielding thoughtfulness, it is like the thoughtfulness of a face which tempts one to ask..."what are you thinking?". This is the zero degree of writing---a closure, a retreat and a suspension of meaning.
Poststructuralist Blues
No Exit from Language:
A metalanguage is a technical language, such as Structuralism, devised
to describe the properties of ordinary language. Wittgenstein had already come up against the limits of logic as a metalanguage in the 1920's. You cannot stand outside language to understand it.
Structuralism, semiotics, and other forms of metinguistics which promised liberation from the enigma of meaning, only lead back to
language, a no exit, and the consequent dangers of a relativist or
even nihilist view of human reason itself. Deconstruction, an offshoot of poststructuralism, has been excused of "relativizing" everything.
Deconstruction
Derrida (b. 1930) has targeted Western philosophy's central assumption of Reason which he sees as dominated by a "metaphysics of presence".
Reason has been shaped by a (dishonest) pursuit of certainty.
Logocentrism desires a perfectly rational language that perfectly represents the real world. Words would literally be the Truth of things--the "Word made flesh", as St. John puts it.
Derrida is outraged by the totalitarian arrogance implicit in the claims of Reason. His outrage does not seem so eccentric when we recall the shameful history of atrocities committed by rationalist
Western cultures: the systematic "rationality" of mass extermination
in the Nazi era, the scientific rationalism of the A bomb, and the
Hiroshima holocaust.
Against the essentialist notion of certainty of meaning, Derrida mobilizes the central insight of structuralism--that meaning is not inherent in signs, nor in what they refer to, but results purely from the relatinships between them. He draws the post-structuralist implications of this point--that structures of meaning (without which nothing exists for us) include and implicate any observers of them. To observe is to interact, so the "scientific" detachment of structuralists or of any other rationalist position is untenable.
According to Derrida, there is nothing outside the text. By "text" he means the semiotic sense of extended discourses, i.e., all practices of interpretation which include, but are not limited to, language. Structuralism's insight to this extent was correct. It was incorrect to suppose that anything reasoned is ever universal, timeless, and stable. Any meaning or identity (including our own) is provisional and relative, because it is never exhaustive. It can always be traced further back to a prior network of differences, and further again, almost to finity or the "zero degree" of sense. This is deconstruction---to peel away like an onion the layers of constructed meanings.
Deconstruction is a strategy for revealing the underlayers of meanings
in a text that were suppressed or assumed in order for it to take its
actual form-- in particular the assumptions of "presence" (the hidden
representations of guaranteed certainty). Meaning include identity (what it is) and difference (what it is not) and it is therefore continuously being "deferred". Derrida invented a word for this process, combining difference and deferral: differance.
Art and Power/knowledge
Michel Foucault (1926-84) is the postmodern theorist most directly concerned with the problems of power and legitimation.
He tackles power from the angle if knowledge as systems of thought
which is socially legitimated and institutional, that is, controlling.
Foucault called his investigations of knowledge an archaelogy of epistemes (from the Greek epistomai, "to understand, to know for certain, to believe", which gives us epistemology, the verification theory of knowledge concerned with distinguishing genuine from spurious knowledge).
F upsets our conventional expectations of history as something linear, a chronology of facts that tell a story which makes sense. Instead, he uncovers the undrrlayers of what is kept suppressed and unconscious in and throughout history--the codes and assumptions of order, the structures of exclusion that legitimate the epistemes, by which societies achieve their identities.
By the mid 1970's, Foucault from the archaeology towards the genealogy
of what he called power/knowledge and he focused more on the
"microphysics" of how power moulds everyone (and not only its victims)
involved in its exercise. He showed how power and knowledge depend on each other. In so doing, the reason of rationalism requires--even creates--social categories of the mad, criminal, and deviant against which to define itself. It is thus sexist, racist, and imperialist in practice.
What is power?
Power cannot only be coercive. It also has to be productive and enabling. Power would be a fragile thing if its only function were to repress. Foucault criticized tbe Marxist-Freudian liberation model of society as a natural instinct repressed by authoritarian famial and social institutions.
Fiction of the Self
French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901-81) applies Saussure's linguistics to explain how the mind comes to be structured and inserted in a social order. Lacan replaces Freud's classic trinity of the psyche--Id, Ego, Superego--with structures of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real which represent the stages of human psychic maturation.
L's most famous pronouncement: "The language is structured like a language". The unconscious functions by signs, symbols, metaphors, and in this sense it is like a language. But Lacan's point is that the unconscious only comes to exist after language acquisition.
Two examples of PM feminism
Luce Irigaray (b. 1932, Belgium)
Women have been assigned no place in history. Only by metonymy do they exist as a possibility for men. They appear as exterior representations either of something else--monuments of Justice, Liberty, Peace...or as objects of men's desire.
That leaves only two possibilities: either there is no feminine
sexuality except as men imagine it or feminine sexuality is a schizoid
duality (a) subordinate to the needs and desires of men (b) autonomous
and explorable only within a radically separatist women's movement.
As a result of these views, the psychoanalyst Irigaray was expelled from the Lananian psychoanalytical school in 1974.
Julia Kristeva (b. Bulgaria, 1941), pioneer semiotician and
psychoanalyst, agrees with Irigaray in refuting the Freudian and
Lacanian accounts of identity which place the feminine outside the
process of self-constitution.
Kristeva goes to an extreme in rejecting the category itself of "women". She refuses to believe in an "essential" woman, a fixed gender, and tries to project a Subject beyond the categories of gender. She is impatient with liberal emancipatory feminism, asserting that the main egalitarian demands have been largely met.
The End of the Story
Emancipationist political activity of any kind depends on a model of
linear purposeful time in which the historical achievements of one
generation are passed on to the next. This is the modernist modernist model of history in which deliberate acts of self-assertion progress towards the realization of a distant idealized goal.
Marxism is the classic example of a long-term emancipationist goal guaranteed by history itself. However, Jean-Francois Lyotard maintains that the liberation of humanity is a self-legitimating myth, a "Grand Narrative" or a metanarrative, maintained ever since the Enlightenment succeeded in turning philosophy into militant politics.
Lyotard has defined the PM condition as "skepticism towards all metanarratives". Metanarratives are the supposedly universal,
absolute, or ultimate truths that are used to legitimize various projects, political or scientific. Examples are: the emancipation of humanity through that of the workers (Marx); the creation of wealth (Adam Smith); the evolution of life (Darwin); the dominance of the unconscious mind (Freud), and so on.
Lyotard prescribed this skepticism in 1979, ten years before the
Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and almost overnight the world
witnessed the total collapse of a Socialist Grand Narrative.
Lyotard confronted another metanarrative myth (besides the one of
political emancipation) which legitimized a modernist view of science.
This is the "speculative unity of all knowledge", the goal of German
Romantic philosophy maximized by the idealist metaphysics of G.W.F.
Hegel (1770-1831). This dream, exemplified by the modern university with all its "faculties" (a sort of departmentalized brain) and its intellectual specialists, is untenable because of the new nature of knowledge.
What's new is cyberspace information -processing which quantifies knowledge according to computer logic.
What's new is the production of a completely new type of knower.
"The old principle that the acquisition of knowledge is indissociable from the training of minds...is becoming obsolete and will become ever more so. The relationships of the suppliers and users of knowledge to the knowledge they supply and use is now tending...to assume the form already taken by the relationship of commodity producers and consumers to the commodities they produce and consume--that is, the form of value. Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its 'use-value'".
The irreversible change from knower to consumer of knowledge is the cornerstone of postmodernity. This is the real historic change which legitimizes PM, and not, as is usually claimed, the "change" to postmodern architecture.
Postmodernism which took shape in the 1970's might just have remained a European academic fad, except for two other successive developments which gave it real substance.
1. Science
- the new info technology and its aim: global cyberspace
- the new cosmology and its aim: The Theory of Everything
- the new progress in genetics and its aim: the Human Genome Project
2. Politics
-the popularity of neo-conservatism and risecof the Respectable Right
in the 1970's
-the collapse of the Berlin Wall symbolizing the complete triumph of a
free market economyover a socialist command economy.
Theories of Everything
Stephen Hawking has encapsulated a theory of the entire universe in
the last lines of his Brief History of Time (1987):
"...if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understable
by everyone...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for
then we will know the mind of God."
As science gets closer to this goal, it assumes postmodern relativist proportions. Relativism was introduced into science by Quantum
Mechanics. W. F. Heisenberg (1901-1976) introduced a measure of permanent uncertainty in science with his principle: the impossibility of predicting both the mass and velocity of a particle at any given
moment.
The "elementary" particle has turned out to be more and more elusive as we discover thatcthe atom not only consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but varieties of gluons, charms, quarks...in a seemingly infinite count. Elementary entities in nature are now regarded by some as strings rather than points. Many scientists see string theory, which has solved the problems of space-time and internal symmetries, as a way forward towards a theory of everything.
Hope is also pinned on the discovery of the Higgs boson, the so-called God particle, which is crucial to the understanding of the structure of matter--the discovery could lead to a single equation of the universe. New developments in mathematics, however, suggest there are serious limits to our scientific knowledge. The emerging theories of chaos and complexity demolish the notion of control and certainty in science.
Chaos can be defined as a kind of order without periodicity. Complexity is concerned with complex systems in which a host of independent agents act with each other to produce spontaneous self- organization. Both theories promise a postmodern revolution in science based on notions of holism, interconnection and order out of chaos and the idea of an autonomous, self-governing nature. Complexity grapples with big questions: what is life, why is there something rather than nothing, why do stock markets crash, why do ancient species remain stable in fossil records over millions of years, etc...While both chaos and complexity have forced us to ask sensible questions and to stop making naive assumptions, both are presented by their champions as theories of everything. Complexity, for example, is championed as "the Theory which includes the entire spectrum, from embryological development, evolution, the dynamics of ecosystems, complex societies, right up to Gaia: it's a theory of everything!"
Such totalizing tendencies in science have come under attack.
Critiques of science from several disciplines (sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and history) have attacked science for its notion of truth and rationality as well as the alleged objectivity of scientific method. All this criticism has established that science is a social process, that scientific method is little short of a myth, that scientific knowledge is in fact manufactured.
Postmodern science can be said to be in a condition of anarchy, a position affirmed as a good thing by the self-styled Dadaist philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend.
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is : anything
goes...Without chaos, no knowledge. Without a frequent dismissal of
reason, no progress...For what appears as 'sloppiness', 'chaos', or
'opportunism'...has a most important function in the development of those very theories which we today regard as essential parts of our knowledge…These ‘deviations’, thee ‘errors’, are preconditions of progress’. Against Method, 1988
The Anthropic Principle
We have seen how postmodern theories tend to belittle the human subject as a fictitious “construct”. Postmodern cosmology has put the human being back into the picture, indeed in the very forefront of the universe, with its anthropic principle which states that the human life has evolved in the way I has because the universe is of a certain size and a certain age.
At its strongest, the anthropic principle suggests human consciousness is somehow “fitted” to the universe, not only as a component but as an observation necessary to give the universe meaning. Quantum physicist Niels Bkhr (1885-1962) proposed that no phenomenon can be said to exist unless it is an observed phenomenon.
Genetics
Critics of the Human Genome Project argue that the reduction of the human being to no more than the biological expression of the program of instructions in his DNA will have serious moral consequences of how we look at ourselves.
Determinists are hunting for the “Cinderella” gene, those particular genes which in isolation pre-determine just about everything from intelligence to homosexuality, free market entrepreneurs and male dominance. If we accept that innate differences and abilities are written in our genes and biologically inherited, then hierarchy is actually encoded in human nature. The world is the way it is because that is exactly how it should be. A proposed scientific explanation thus becomes the instrument for legitimizing the status quo.
PART TREE: THE GENEALOGY OF POST MODERN HISTORY
Postmodernism cannot follow in sequence after modernism, because this would be an admission of historic progress and a relapse into Grand Narrative mythology.
Architecture claims to have a precise date for the inauguration of postmodernism. At 3;32 p.m. on 15 July 1972, the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis, Missouri, a prize-winning complex designed for low income people, was dynamited as uninhabitable. According to Charles Jencks, this proclaimed the death of the International Style of modernist architecture, the end of buildings as “machines for living” envisioned for us by Mies van der Rohe, Gropius, Le Corbusier and other abstract functionalists.
Po Mo Vernacular
Also in 1972, the American architect Robert Venturi 9b. 1925) formulated the postmodern creed. In place of unilateral “glass boxes”, po mo architecture offers the vernacular, an emphasis on the local and particular as opposed to modernist universalism. This means a return to ornament, with references to the historic past and its symbolism, but in the ironic manner of parody, pastiche and quotation.
Venturi and other postmoderns propose a “comicstrip” architecture---electric, ambiguous, humorous, in short, unpretentious. An example of this is Philip Johnson (a defector from High Modernism) who produced the New York A. T. &T. Building in the shape of a grandfather clock topped off with a Chippendale broken pediment.
Computerizing Difference
Modernist experimenters failed to change the world of capitalism---in fact , the utopian purity of their glass towers ended by glorifying the power of banks, airlines and multinational corporations. Similarly, po mo architects cannot avoid being employees of late capitalism. They cannot invent a “history” simply by changing the look of buildings. Besides, po mo architecture continues to use the construction materials and the mass production techniques of modernism, but with an added novelty: computer. Theorists like Charles Jencks believe the computer can replace the stereotyped uniformity of modernism by multiplying difference.
Hypermodernism: The Memory Loss of Reality
We are entering an amnesiac zone of “ postmodernity” which should be called hypermodernism. The meaning of so-called postmodernism turns out to be technological hyper-intensification of modernism. Technology and economics merge and are disguised by alternative labels---post-industrial, electronic, services, information, computer-economy---each of which contributes to hyperreal processing and simulation. An example: olestra, a sucrose polyester of hyperreal fat. Olestra tastes like fat, acts like fat in cooking and will stain your stain if you drop some on it, but it’s in no sense a food because your digestive enzymes can’t get a grip on it. It’s digestively inert.
Cyberia
The term cyberspace was coined by science-fiction writer William Gibson in his novel Neuromancer and defined as “consensual hallucination”. The civilization springing up online is cyberia
A Walk on the Wild Side
The true neuromancer theorist of po mo Cyberia is Jean Baudrillard. Let’s walk with Beaudrillard into Virtual Reality.
Step 1. The image is a reflection of a basic reality.
Step 2. The image masks and perverts a basic reality.
Step 3. The image masks the absence of a basic reality
Step 4. The postmodern simulacrum: A pair of sneakers, expensive sreet-cred models sportswear having nothing with sport. The slogan advertising Nike Air Jordan goes like this: “Get some get some get some get some.’
Only (re)Produce
The opposite of knowledge is not ignorance but deceit and fraud. The last 25 years of the 20th century will go down in history as symptomatic of a total lack of originality. Our scanty resources of invention are all parasitically confined to reproduction. Everything apparently “new” –whether it be CDs, cyberspace Virtual Reality or even the DNA Genome Project and postmodern cosmology—is feeding on the originality of the past, on a data back not simply of information but of already experienced reality.
Why have we come to this unprecedented technologically-streamlined cannibalization? Could it be that we are commanded by an unconscious, biologically determined will ( a “selfish gene”) to proceed with the absolute demolition of the past for a reason that we cannot comprehend? Are we “wiping the slate clean” for the coming of the artificially engineered human?
This is a paranoiac vision of reproduction, a sci-fi pessimistic advent of the inhuman.
We might do better to reconsider Marx’s view of capitalist reproduction. The reality of capitalist production is that a process which unfolds in time. One cycle of production succeeded by another: a question of continuity in short, which is a problem of social and economic reproduction.
For capitalist production to be continuous in time, it must not only reproduce itself completely but expand the fundamental conditions of its mode of production. The question arises: How can this continuity of production be maintained, when the value and global extent of this production seem to result from individual decisions by thousands of businessmen who hide their intentions from each other?
And this is why everything “postmodern” so nakedly depends on and stems from reproduction. The game is about fabricating a sort of knowledge, which although it looks to be expanding and becoming accessible to a vast public on the internet superhighways, is in fact becoming industrially controlled.
So, when Lyotard replaces the traditionally-trained knower with the “knower as consumer”, he is not valoring either the ‘new” knower or the novelties of knowledge, but is implicitly acknowledging the omnipotence of the free market economy. The new-born consumer of knowledge enters with amnesia into an already established game of deceit. He is a myth of modernity.
Third World Postmodernism
What does postmodernism look like from a Third World perspective? Let’s look at music for a start.
Quawwali is the devotional music of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of Sufi origins, it is sung to the simple rhythm of traditional drums and hand-clapping in praise of God, Prophet Muhammad, Ali the fourth Caliph of Islam, and classical Sufi masters. The postmodern revival of Quawwali owes a great deal to Martin Scorsese’s film The Last Temptation of Christ where Quawwali and other Islamic music provided passionate musical backing to a narrative that, ironically, tried to undermine the religious sanctity of its subject matter. But in the Subcontinent it has gone funky and is sung to a syncopated rock beat generated by synthesizers. What was designed to induce mystical ecstasy is now used to generate hysteria for rock music.
Traditional non-Western music has become fair game for postmodern appropriation. Music from Zaire, the Solomon Islands, Burundi, the Sahel, Iran, Turkey, and elsewhere is freely blended with New Age electronics and rock beats to make it palatable to Western tastes.
Modern Indian cinema and pop music, Malay hard rock and the work of postmodern novelists like Thailand’s Somtow celebrate PM wholeheartedly.
On the other had, South African jive music, contemporary Filipino film, the punk rock culture of Medellin cocaine slums in Columbia take a more critical stance towards PM. Kenyan ovelist Ngugi wa Thiongo’s decision to abandon the novel and mainly in Kikuyu and Rigoberta Menchu’s striking testimonial narrative of Indian resistance in Guatemala, I, Rigoberta Menchu, have transformed PM into a culture of resistance. Third World PM is as diverse as PM cultures themselves.
Religious revival in Latin America, India and the Muslim World is a reaction against PMs of both right and left. Whatever its political color, PM retains its penchant for hybridity, relativism, and heterogeneity, its aesthetic hedonism, its anti-essentialism and its rejection of “Grand Narratives” (of redemption). In Latin America, rightwing politics and religious fundamentalism, imported from the U.S., have made major inroads in poor and working class communities from Brazil to Guatemala. Elsewhere, the discourse of Liberation Theology aims to replace Eurocentric conceptions of both modernity and PM with an indigenous historical and cultural consciousness. The discourse of “Islamization of knowledge” promotes the same goals in the Muslim world.
The End of History
The book by American historian Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992) encapsulates and celebrates PM history as an actual reality. In a deliberately prophetic, evangelical tone, Fukuyama proclaims a New Gospel (from the Old English, godspel, “good news”) at the end of the millennium, which is a capitalist paradise as the end of history.
Jacques Derrida has turned the fire-power of deconstruction on Fukuyama’s “good news” which is jubilant liberal democratic capitalism has survived the threat of Marxism. Derrida warns us: this jubilation hides the truth from itself : “Never in history has the horizon of the thing whose survival is being celebrated been as dark, threatening and threatened.”
Curiously, F invokes Marx and his predecessor, the idealist philosopher, Hegel, to celebrate the triumph of capitalism. Both Marx and Hegel believed that evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. Both thinkers posited the “end of history”. For Hegel, this was the liberal state, for Marx, it was a communist society. F employs teleology in arriving at his conclusion about the “end of history”. Teleology (from the Greek, telos, “end”) assumes that developments are shaped by an overall purpose or design. The “end’ of history according to F means several things: (1) history in which Marxism played a role has ended, (2) because of a purpose, (3) which is that history has reached its end, i.e., a supreme goal which is liberal democracy, “the only coherent political aspiration that spans different regions and cultures around the globe.” This global move towards liberal democracy goes together with a free market economy. Their alliance is “good news”.
A dialogue among three men:
A (Wissai): Not all parts of the world are heading towards liberal democracy? Think of China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba (all communist states!), Myanmar, Iran and a bunch of states in the Middle East and almost all the pathetic states in Africa.
B (Fukuyama): While “some” (sic!) present-day countries fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on.
C (Derrida): Wrong! Democracy can be improved on, because it has yet to come. It is a defective reality in the present, not a utopia which is already an event.
If the “end of history” is teleological, the second half of F’s title “the Last Man” involves eschatology (from the Greek eskhatos, “last”) is Christian theology’s doctrine of the Last Judgment or what your present behavior will earn in the future. F also refers to Nietzsche’s prophecy of the “supermen” who will replace today’s decadent “last men”.
Another dialogue among three men:
D: F celebrated the dominance of a Christian Eurocentric history.
E: It excludes all other histories, unless they are “spiritually” converted to the liberal democracy and the free market.
B (Fukuyama himself): That’s why the Islamic world (a world of more than one billion adherents!), in my view, can be disregarded. It doesn’t enter into the general consensus which is taking shape around liberal democracy.
Derrida wonders why F’s book of “good news” was enthusiastically received in the West at the moment of capitalist victory over Marxism? why the need of reassurance of capitalist survival? Derrida view the book as a media-gadget that responds perfectly to the PM condition of virtuality. Capitalism’s media triumph conceals the truth that it has never been more fragile, threatened, catastrophic. Something else has surpassed both the Marxism figure-headed by a totalitarian Soviet bloc and its liberal free market opponent. This something is a set of hyperreality transformations in the spheres of science, technology, and economics which put our traditional notions of “democracy’ in grave doubt.
The crux of postmodernity is that there are two “presents”. One is a “specter” present, a Virtual Reality techno-media simulacrum that makes the other “real” present appear borderline, fugitive, elusive. A de-materialization of the real is making our opposition to its ineffectual. Against the insolent postmodern Gospel that dares to proclaim liberal democracy as the realized “end” of human history, Derrida protests: “…never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the Earth and of humanity…no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the Earth…”
Derrida is the bad conscience at Marx’s funeral. His disapproval of F’s brand of neo-rightwing PM, passing off as “liberal”, means that he has to back-pedal and admit the Marxist element in deconstruction.
Fourth World War
We have undergone three World Wars so far. The Third ended with the Cold War defeat of Communism in 1989. Each of these wars went further in the direction of a single hegemonic world order and increasingly unpredictable resistance to it. The current “war on terror” can be viewed as the Fourth World War, with the United States leading the war and she is not winning for the following reasons: (1) her allies are lukewarm and noncommittal (2) her economy ill affords it (3) her knee-jerk support of Israel—a state which practices terror itself on its Palestinian subjects, contributes to the solidarity of its opponents, Radical Islam which views its long period of subjugation and exploitation at the hands of the Christian West and the occupation of Palestine by the Zionists no longer tolerable (4) history has shown that it is very difficult to combat the alliance of emotionalism (religion) and nationalism. China is waiting for the U.S. to exhaust herself in her almost solo, expensive, interminable war on terror. China will then come in and kick the U.S. into the dust bin of history as a spent, exhausted, poorly led former world power.
China is poised to replace the U.S. as a single hegemonic world power with unforeseen consequences to the world, unless the U.S. is to reverse course and achieve some understanding and truce with the elements of Radical Islam. The current efforts by the right wing in the U.S. to demonize Islam would just ensure American exhaustion and eventual defeat. America seeks high-tech immunity from the virus of terrorism, but terrorism is a low-tech pathogen. It cheats the system by playing its ace card of suicide.
Islamist terrorism is a postmodern clone of the cold war. The United States and her nominal allies, especially Britain, risk chemical, biological, and dirty bombs attacks to the extent the Cold War left an immense scrap-yard of such deterrents in the former Soviet Union and other unstable countries.
However, hope springs eternal. Several elements in the U.S. still think the U.S. can still win the war by virtue of Al Queda’s extremism and excesses which eventually will force the mainstream Islam to revolt and join forces with the U.S. to defeat the common enemy.
Neo-Darwinist evolutionary psychology
Islamic culture finds itself implicated in terrorist regression. Is any culture able to resist global homogenization? Resistance assumes that culture is consciously autonomous. But is it? Survival depends on what we believe, what we do and how we see others. What if these tactics of culture are precoded conditions of behavior? This is the view of neo-Darwinist evolutionary psychology. Cultures are themselves products of Darwinian natural selection, just like our genes, and are generated unconsciously like everything else in the universe. Richard Dawkins coined the term “memes’ as the cultural equivalents of selfish genes. Memes are the elementary, reproducible components of culture that transcend individual carriers.
So, if culture is meme-structured and genetically patterned, if we are trapped in our symbols, customs, religions, languages, and so forth, then we are in fact blinded and handicapped by our cultures. What chance do we have of resisting our own limits, unless, a tendency to a single universally homogenous culture is also pre-programmed? Differences of culture are doomed to leveling.
Conversion between two men:
Darwin: In your “meme” script, conscious mind do not count at all..
Dawkins: Not quite, we are gifted with understanding the “blind forces” that gave us all existence. Science is impossible without imagination, but we are still embedded in the Darwinian “algorithm of natural selection”.
Beyond our Conscious Perception
String Theory is the novelty in sub-particle physics (and that perhaps explain why all beings, humans especially of course, respond to music, the sounds being harmonized). It only makes sense in a 10-dimensional world, imperceptible to us, because the extra dimensions are wrapped invisibly small. String theory might just be wacky “post”-physics but it conforms to the modernist scientific spirit of reducing everything--including our consciousness--to smallest bits in its quest for the Grand United Theory of Everything. Reality eludes us more with each step in diminution. We have forgotten the existentialist dictum of Sartre (1905-1980 who turned down a Nobel Prize in Literature!): “What we call freedom is the irreducibility of the cultural order to the natural order.” Sartre said that reductionism would not answer the question: “How is it that matter can have ideas?”
Wissai
Feb 1, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Nature of passion
Bac Thanh:
I comb and look for gems in everything you write. The last sentence in your below email is good and thus stays with me. It will enrich my thoughts and become a part of me. That is what learning means.
The first sentence in your email, however, is so jarring and nonsensical that I winced and cringed when I first laid my eyes on it. Bac Thanh, not everybody on this planet has passion if by passion we mean fervor, enthusiam, ardor. Look around you. Most humans go through life listlessly, even aimlessly, without zest. They live in a manner as if they are waiting for Death to arrive and take them from the quiet miserable, insipid existence they are having.
Most humans live a life no different from that of animals, totally driven by biological imperatives, and completely bereft of higher ideals. That's my indictment of the human race, my fellow countrymen included. My indictment may smack of elitism and arrogance, but once you look past the initial shock that it caused, and reflect on it, I am confident that you will agree with me.
Most humans are sheep. They cannot think for themselves. They don't know how to get to the truth. They have to rely on others to tell them what truth is. They are slaves. And unscrupulous and power-hungry politicians and "religious" leaders pounce on them and take advantage of them. I am not saying all politicians and those who assume leadership roles in religion are unscrupulous and power-hungry, but most are---Hitler and Pat Robertson are the prime examples.
The good, the caring in this world are always in the minority because it takes work to be good and caring. It takes effort to transcend our animal heritage of selfishness, ruthlessness, and exploitation. It takes courage also. Le Cong Dinh, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and like-minded dissidents are good because they care enough about Vietnam, about us, to the point they became courageous and they spoke up at their own personal risks. And they are paying for their courage with their being deprived of liberty. They are in jail! They have passion, the right one. They are real humans, living an authentic existence while most of us just run our mouths on a daily basis and yet are doing absolutely nothing for Vietnam. We are cowards, in every sense of the word. I even advance a thesis that lives of cowards are not even worth living because those lives lack dignity. I struggle everyday with a thought if my life indeed has any meaning and dignity, if I am indeed a coward,
full of sound and fury, and yet doing nothing for Vietnam I profess to love. I struggle with the feeling whether or not I am a hypocrite.
I speak like a man possessed. And I am possessed by a fear and a struggle not to be a sheep, a coward, and a hypocrite. I am a man of many fears and struggles.
Wissai
Bac Wissai:
I can guarantee you that every one on this earth has passion. The passion bac Tuan indicated in his email was the kind of passion that he shared and therefore admired. In general, the key element of passion in human is the ability to understand the passions of others, which may or may not be different and often contradictory to oneself. Such element often manifests itself into what one calls simply "live-and let-live."
Also, passion can be right and it can be wrong. The passion for sex can lead to wrong doing and a passion for mathematics can drive a man crazy. One thing worthy of our attention is that we must not allow our passion to overtake our sense and sensibility in life.
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai wrote:
Dear anh MAT:
Your words about passion triggered the following:
Without passion, one remains a nobody, a run of the mill, a mediocrity. The key thing is to have right passion, the right cause.
Everybody goes through life only once, contrary to all the wishful thinking and myths and brainwashing. We need to learn to live life a bit dangerously, a little on the edge. To play it safe often means not to know fully the meaning of life. Life is not how long we live it, but how we live it. The only way I know how to do it is to live fully, to the brim, fearlessly and yet responsibly. Also it helps if we learn to be true to ourselves and to others. Sooner or later, everybody would figure out who we are. So, the best way to deal with others is not to be who we are not since hypocrisy is despicable and cowardly. Nobody respects noise-making cowards. If cowardice is within our constitution, our make-up, it's far better to be a quiet coward than a noisy one. Noise attracts attention and creates expectation. Unmet expectations lead to contempt.
Wissai
Mitchong Philosopher
I comb and look for gems in everything you write. The last sentence in your below email is good and thus stays with me. It will enrich my thoughts and become a part of me. That is what learning means.
The first sentence in your email, however, is so jarring and nonsensical that I winced and cringed when I first laid my eyes on it. Bac Thanh, not everybody on this planet has passion if by passion we mean fervor, enthusiam, ardor. Look around you. Most humans go through life listlessly, even aimlessly, without zest. They live in a manner as if they are waiting for Death to arrive and take them from the quiet miserable, insipid existence they are having.
Most humans live a life no different from that of animals, totally driven by biological imperatives, and completely bereft of higher ideals. That's my indictment of the human race, my fellow countrymen included. My indictment may smack of elitism and arrogance, but once you look past the initial shock that it caused, and reflect on it, I am confident that you will agree with me.
Most humans are sheep. They cannot think for themselves. They don't know how to get to the truth. They have to rely on others to tell them what truth is. They are slaves. And unscrupulous and power-hungry politicians and "religious" leaders pounce on them and take advantage of them. I am not saying all politicians and those who assume leadership roles in religion are unscrupulous and power-hungry, but most are---Hitler and Pat Robertson are the prime examples.
The good, the caring in this world are always in the minority because it takes work to be good and caring. It takes effort to transcend our animal heritage of selfishness, ruthlessness, and exploitation. It takes courage also. Le Cong Dinh, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and like-minded dissidents are good because they care enough about Vietnam, about us, to the point they became courageous and they spoke up at their own personal risks. And they are paying for their courage with their being deprived of liberty. They are in jail! They have passion, the right one. They are real humans, living an authentic existence while most of us just run our mouths on a daily basis and yet are doing absolutely nothing for Vietnam. We are cowards, in every sense of the word. I even advance a thesis that lives of cowards are not even worth living because those lives lack dignity. I struggle everyday with a thought if my life indeed has any meaning and dignity, if I am indeed a coward,
full of sound and fury, and yet doing nothing for Vietnam I profess to love. I struggle with the feeling whether or not I am a hypocrite.
I speak like a man possessed. And I am possessed by a fear and a struggle not to be a sheep, a coward, and a hypocrite. I am a man of many fears and struggles.
Wissai
Bac Wissai:
I can guarantee you that every one on this earth has passion. The passion bac Tuan indicated in his email was the kind of passion that he shared and therefore admired. In general, the key element of passion in human is the ability to understand the passions of others, which may or may not be different and often contradictory to oneself. Such element often manifests itself into what one calls simply "live-and let-live."
Also, passion can be right and it can be wrong. The passion for sex can lead to wrong doing and a passion for mathematics can drive a man crazy. One thing worthy of our attention is that we must not allow our passion to overtake our sense and sensibility in life.
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai
Dear anh MAT:
Your words about passion triggered the following:
Without passion, one remains a nobody, a run of the mill, a mediocrity. The key thing is to have right passion, the right cause.
Everybody goes through life only once, contrary to all the wishful thinking and myths and brainwashing. We need to learn to live life a bit dangerously, a little on the edge. To play it safe often means not to know fully the meaning of life. Life is not how long we live it, but how we live it. The only way I know how to do it is to live fully, to the brim, fearlessly and yet responsibly. Also it helps if we learn to be true to ourselves and to others. Sooner or later, everybody would figure out who we are. So, the best way to deal with others is not to be who we are not since hypocrisy is despicable and cowardly. Nobody respects noise-making cowards. If cowardice is within our constitution, our make-up, it's far better to be a quiet coward than a noisy one. Noise attracts attention and creates expectation. Unmet expectations lead to contempt.
Wissai
Mitchong Philosopher
The Vietnam Tragedy
The Vietnam Tragedy
I would like to write something about a tragedy called Vietnam, but
then I wonder if I am qualified for the task at all. To do justice to
such a subject, one has to be a historian keenly interesed in the
tragedy and willing to spend years doing research which includes
interviewing relevant historical personages whose actions had an
impact on contemporary Vietnamese history. In addition, i am aware
that putting my thoughts down on paper would expose myself to
criticisms, some of which can be unconstructive and unpleasant, but I
am ploughing ahead due to the urgency of the situation and the scope
of the tragedy. I am offering what at best are merely my personal
impressions based on some facts.
Impressions don't carry with them a strong conviction as ideas. Ideas
in turn do not necessarily lead to truths and verities, especially in
religion and politics. While ideas in religion lack verification and
require blind acceptance from the faithful or induce outright
rejection from the skeptical on the basis of the fantasticality of
the religious dogmas, in politics such a verification does occur, but
the process takes a long time.
For thousands of years, rulers relied on an idea called the divine
right for legitimacy. They either claimed they were gods or sons of
God or had the support of God. Such a quaint idea had a long sway over
the populace because of widespread ignorance though there were some
few exceptions in some periods of Ancient Greece and later in Ancient
Rome when the ideas of democracy and rules by representation flourished.
Although atheism, and by implication a direct challenge to the idea of
divine right, occured in Ancient Greece and was held by some Indian
thinkers of antiquity, it didn't become a contending idea and force
until The Age of Enlightenment. It and the idea of democracy
challenged the divine right of rule. Since then democracy slowly took
root and displaced the divine right of rule when 20th century arrived.
Atheism's progress has been slower but steady. I doubt if it ever
displaces theism as a prevailing mode of thinking of humans no matter
how widespread scientific knowledge is disseminated. There is
something about humans that make most of them fall in love and stay in
love with illusions and delusions.
The Midde Ages witnessed the rise of the merchant class and with it,
the idea of capitalism and the political power that money could bring.
The Industrial Revolution brought about subsequent intolerable abuses
of workers. Several ideas were advanced to combat the abuses, one of
which was Communism, a product of a philosopher, which, among other
things, called for the dictatorship of the proletariat and class
warfare in lieu of national unity and solidarity
As an idea, communism is not bad by itself though it is idealistic and
fails to address squarely the pervasive propensity of humans to place
self-interest over common interests. Sure enough, the application of
communism in both politics and economics has proven disastrous.
The blueprint set by Lenin on how to seize political power and hang
on to it led directly to a repressive totalitarianism of the worst
kind, responsible for over 100 million deaths and utter human
degradation. It turned out there was no such thing as dictatorship of
the proletariat; instead, there have existed the dictatorship of a
ruling clique in the name of the party, the exclusive authority in the
country.
In the realm of economics, communist central planning as opposed to
capitalist market economy, proved to be inferior. A look at the
disparity in economic achievements between the former East Germany and
former West Germany and between the present North and South Korea
would prove the point.
It is the tragedy of Vietnam that Communism as an ideology caught the
eye of the young nationalist Nguyen Tat Thanh. He was trained by
Russia and later was helped by Red China in his struggle to expel the
French colonists. The Vietminh movement under his leadership utilized
outright lies and ruthless cunning in exterminating those fellow
compatriots who didn't share its communist ideology. Even back in the
1940's and 1950's, there were many Vietnamese who found communist
ideology distasteful and inhuman as it reduced humans to the level of
pure animal existence where lies were welcome and betrayal and
complete ruthlessness commonly practiced. Thus, it was no surprise
that when Vietnam was partitioned in 1954, a million people in North
Vietnam opted for life under a non-communist, market economy regime.
Dissatisfied with ruling just half of Vietnam, Nguyen Tat Thanh, now
commonly known with the alias Ho Chi Minh, decided to invade South
Vietnam, just like his counterpart in North Korea did in 1950. The
Vietnam tragedy got worse with this invasion which caused the deaths
of around 4 million Vietnamese, immense destruction of the
infrastructure of both North and South Vietnam, damage to the ecology
and the morals, the dislocation of 3 million Vietnamese who sought
refuge from communism, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands who
perished in an effort to seek freedom. The Vietnamese paid a very high
price for the experiment of unifying the country under communism. The
experiment was successful because of unflagging support of Red China
which helped Ho Chi Minh (HCM) with the ulterior motive of taking over
Vietnam itself at a later date. Such later date is happening right
now. One of the reasons I state communism is a tragedy for Vietnam is
because the class warfare adopted enthusiastically by HCM and his
lieutenants has alienated large segments of Vietnamese society. The
segments harbor intense contempt and hatred for the VCP, espcially its
leadership, and thus don't want to shed blood to protect the VCP even
if there is an all-out invasion of Vietnam by China. This lack of the
will to resist is posing a clear and present danger to the survival of
the Vietnamese. Disunity is always a harbinger of defeat. We cannot
blame the attitude of those segments of Vietnamese society. Earlier in
the fight against the French colonists, they responded to the appeal
of nationalism advocated by the communists, only to see that the
ruling clique of the communists enjoyed all the fruits of sacrifice by
blood contributed by all Vietnamese, once the French were kicked out
of the country. What Vietnam needs is a movement that transcends the
narrow interests of the VCP and is fiercely nationalist in character
for any chance to repel the Chinese to succeed.
Red China was also involved with Communist uprisings in Malaya (name
of the country then) and Indonesia in the 1950's and 1960's, but
fortunately for these countries, the uprisings were crushed decisively
thanks to the following factors:
1. Most of the rebels and their sympathizers were of Chinese
extraction. They generally didn't receive the support of the non-
Chinese population.
2. The antipathy of Islam, a religion of most ethnic Malays and
Indonesians, towards Communism.
3. Most significantly, because of the geographical distance of these
two countries from Red China, a source that fomented troubles, Red
China was not in a position to assist unimpededly their communist
brethren as it did to the Vietnamese communists.
Due to their escape from the scourge of communism, these two countries
have moved on and surpassed Vietnam in standard of living and
democratic way of life while Vietnam is mired in corruption,
ineptitude, breakdown of morality, and dictatorship. More importantly,
these two countries are not facing any danger of losing sovereignty
over their own countries whereas Vietnam is forced to yield land and
sea to China. Such is the tragedy of Vietnam, the tragedy of embracing
a bankrupt ideology which was repudiated even in the land of its
origin, the tragedy of blindly following the footsteps of China.
Faced with such tragedy and the irony that after going through immense
suffering and losing millions of people in the struggle to oust the
French colonists and in the quest to unify the country under the
banner of communism, Vietnam is being taken over piece by piece by the
its alleged Big Brother Communist China, an array of opposition to the
Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) is emerging in Vietnam. Some
optimistic and over-enthusiastic anti-communists in overseas
Vietnamese communities claim that the emerging opposition consisting
of outspoken lawyers, scholars, technocrats, religious leaders,
students, and retired party officials constitutes "a perfect storm"
that threatens to blow away once and for all the VCP out of the
country and into oblivion,
I contend that the metaphor of "a perfect storm" is a hyperbole. At
best, the opposition at its current stage of development is no more
than a squall that does nothing to the regime other than bringing some
rains of annoyance and anger to the VCP, because in response to the
rains, the Hanoi regime has brought out its reliable umbrella of
repression via imprisonment whereby the state would not provide
sustenance to the prisoners. Such responsibility falls on the families
and friends of the prisoners. To rule over others by the threat of
inducing starvation has been a well-honed and evil technique of the
Vietnamese Communists. At present, the squall appears to be stalling
and is in danger of petering out. For the squall to strengthen to a
status worthy to be called "a perfect storm", the opposition has
somehow to galvanize the support of the populace. If the Vietnamese
from all walks of life are persuaded to overcome the human instinct of
self-preservation and decide en masse that they want to take their
destiny into their own hands and thus take to the streets in all the
main cities of Vietnam and demand that the VCP act responsibly with
respect to various issues, especially the urgent issue of China's
encroachment on Viet territory, then and only then do we have a
perfect storm that would blow the VCP out of existence and bring into
its place a form of government that would respond to the needs of the
people, hence the country.
Wissai
I would like to write something about a tragedy called Vietnam, but
then I wonder if I am qualified for the task at all. To do justice to
such a subject, one has to be a historian keenly interesed in the
tragedy and willing to spend years doing research which includes
interviewing relevant historical personages whose actions had an
impact on contemporary Vietnamese history. In addition, i am aware
that putting my thoughts down on paper would expose myself to
criticisms, some of which can be unconstructive and unpleasant, but I
am ploughing ahead due to the urgency of the situation and the scope
of the tragedy. I am offering what at best are merely my personal
impressions based on some facts.
Impressions don't carry with them a strong conviction as ideas. Ideas
in turn do not necessarily lead to truths and verities, especially in
religion and politics. While ideas in religion lack verification and
require blind acceptance from the faithful or induce outright
rejection from the skeptical on the basis of the fantasticality of
the religious dogmas, in politics such a verification does occur, but
the process takes a long time.
For thousands of years, rulers relied on an idea called the divine
right for legitimacy. They either claimed they were gods or sons of
God or had the support of God. Such a quaint idea had a long sway over
the populace because of widespread ignorance though there were some
few exceptions in some periods of Ancient Greece and later in Ancient
Rome when the ideas of democracy and rules by representation flourished.
Although atheism, and by implication a direct challenge to the idea of
divine right, occured in Ancient Greece and was held by some Indian
thinkers of antiquity, it didn't become a contending idea and force
until The Age of Enlightenment. It and the idea of democracy
challenged the divine right of rule. Since then democracy slowly took
root and displaced the divine right of rule when 20th century arrived.
Atheism's progress has been slower but steady. I doubt if it ever
displaces theism as a prevailing mode of thinking of humans no matter
how widespread scientific knowledge is disseminated. There is
something about humans that make most of them fall in love and stay in
love with illusions and delusions.
The Midde Ages witnessed the rise of the merchant class and with it,
the idea of capitalism and the political power that money could bring.
The Industrial Revolution brought about subsequent intolerable abuses
of workers. Several ideas were advanced to combat the abuses, one of
which was Communism, a product of a philosopher, which, among other
things, called for the dictatorship of the proletariat and class
warfare in lieu of national unity and solidarity
As an idea, communism is not bad by itself though it is idealistic and
fails to address squarely the pervasive propensity of humans to place
self-interest over common interests. Sure enough, the application of
communism in both politics and economics has proven disastrous.
The blueprint set by Lenin on how to seize political power and hang
on to it led directly to a repressive totalitarianism of the worst
kind, responsible for over 100 million deaths and utter human
degradation. It turned out there was no such thing as dictatorship of
the proletariat; instead, there have existed the dictatorship of a
ruling clique in the name of the party, the exclusive authority in the
country.
In the realm of economics, communist central planning as opposed to
capitalist market economy, proved to be inferior. A look at the
disparity in economic achievements between the former East Germany and
former West Germany and between the present North and South Korea
would prove the point.
It is the tragedy of Vietnam that Communism as an ideology caught the
eye of the young nationalist Nguyen Tat Thanh. He was trained by
Russia and later was helped by Red China in his struggle to expel the
French colonists. The Vietminh movement under his leadership utilized
outright lies and ruthless cunning in exterminating those fellow
compatriots who didn't share its communist ideology. Even back in the
1940's and 1950's, there were many Vietnamese who found communist
ideology distasteful and inhuman as it reduced humans to the level of
pure animal existence where lies were welcome and betrayal and
complete ruthlessness commonly practiced. Thus, it was no surprise
that when Vietnam was partitioned in 1954, a million people in North
Vietnam opted for life under a non-communist, market economy regime.
Dissatisfied with ruling just half of Vietnam, Nguyen Tat Thanh, now
commonly known with the alias Ho Chi Minh, decided to invade South
Vietnam, just like his counterpart in North Korea did in 1950. The
Vietnam tragedy got worse with this invasion which caused the deaths
of around 4 million Vietnamese, immense destruction of the
infrastructure of both North and South Vietnam, damage to the ecology
and the morals, the dislocation of 3 million Vietnamese who sought
refuge from communism, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands who
perished in an effort to seek freedom. The Vietnamese paid a very high
price for the experiment of unifying the country under communism. The
experiment was successful because of unflagging support of Red China
which helped Ho Chi Minh (HCM) with the ulterior motive of taking over
Vietnam itself at a later date. Such later date is happening right
now. One of the reasons I state communism is a tragedy for Vietnam is
because the class warfare adopted enthusiastically by HCM and his
lieutenants has alienated large segments of Vietnamese society. The
segments harbor intense contempt and hatred for the VCP, espcially its
leadership, and thus don't want to shed blood to protect the VCP even
if there is an all-out invasion of Vietnam by China. This lack of the
will to resist is posing a clear and present danger to the survival of
the Vietnamese. Disunity is always a harbinger of defeat. We cannot
blame the attitude of those segments of Vietnamese society. Earlier in
the fight against the French colonists, they responded to the appeal
of nationalism advocated by the communists, only to see that the
ruling clique of the communists enjoyed all the fruits of sacrifice by
blood contributed by all Vietnamese, once the French were kicked out
of the country. What Vietnam needs is a movement that transcends the
narrow interests of the VCP and is fiercely nationalist in character
for any chance to repel the Chinese to succeed.
Red China was also involved with Communist uprisings in Malaya (name
of the country then) and Indonesia in the 1950's and 1960's, but
fortunately for these countries, the uprisings were crushed decisively
thanks to the following factors:
1. Most of the rebels and their sympathizers were of Chinese
extraction. They generally didn't receive the support of the non-
Chinese population.
2. The antipathy of Islam, a religion of most ethnic Malays and
Indonesians, towards Communism.
3. Most significantly, because of the geographical distance of these
two countries from Red China, a source that fomented troubles, Red
China was not in a position to assist unimpededly their communist
brethren as it did to the Vietnamese communists.
Due to their escape from the scourge of communism, these two countries
have moved on and surpassed Vietnam in standard of living and
democratic way of life while Vietnam is mired in corruption,
ineptitude, breakdown of morality, and dictatorship. More importantly,
these two countries are not facing any danger of losing sovereignty
over their own countries whereas Vietnam is forced to yield land and
sea to China. Such is the tragedy of Vietnam, the tragedy of embracing
a bankrupt ideology which was repudiated even in the land of its
origin, the tragedy of blindly following the footsteps of China.
Faced with such tragedy and the irony that after going through immense
suffering and losing millions of people in the struggle to oust the
French colonists and in the quest to unify the country under the
banner of communism, Vietnam is being taken over piece by piece by the
its alleged Big Brother Communist China, an array of opposition to the
Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) is emerging in Vietnam. Some
optimistic and over-enthusiastic anti-communists in overseas
Vietnamese communities claim that the emerging opposition consisting
of outspoken lawyers, scholars, technocrats, religious leaders,
students, and retired party officials constitutes "a perfect storm"
that threatens to blow away once and for all the VCP out of the
country and into oblivion,
I contend that the metaphor of "a perfect storm" is a hyperbole. At
best, the opposition at its current stage of development is no more
than a squall that does nothing to the regime other than bringing some
rains of annoyance and anger to the VCP, because in response to the
rains, the Hanoi regime has brought out its reliable umbrella of
repression via imprisonment whereby the state would not provide
sustenance to the prisoners. Such responsibility falls on the families
and friends of the prisoners. To rule over others by the threat of
inducing starvation has been a well-honed and evil technique of the
Vietnamese Communists. At present, the squall appears to be stalling
and is in danger of petering out. For the squall to strengthen to a
status worthy to be called "a perfect storm", the opposition has
somehow to galvanize the support of the populace. If the Vietnamese
from all walks of life are persuaded to overcome the human instinct of
self-preservation and decide en masse that they want to take their
destiny into their own hands and thus take to the streets in all the
main cities of Vietnam and demand that the VCP act responsibly with
respect to various issues, especially the urgent issue of China's
encroachment on Viet territory, then and only then do we have a
perfect storm that would blow the VCP out of existence and bring into
its place a form of government that would respond to the needs of the
people, hence the country.
Wissai
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tình Trạng mơ hồ có tính toán tại Biền Đông
Tình trạng mơ hồ có tính toán tại Biển Đông
Peter J Brown, Asia Times Online, ngày 08/12/2009
Nguồn: http://www.atimes. com/atimes/ Southeast_ Asia/KL08Ae01. html
Ngay lúc một nhóm chuyên gia bay đến Hà Nội hồi tháng trước để dự hội thảo lần đầu tiên qui tụ nhiều nước có tuyên bố chủ quyền chồng lấn ở Biển Đông, tàu giám hộ đánh cá lớn nhất Trung Quốc, Ngư Chính 311, đã thả neo tại Đảo Vĩnh Hưng (tức Đảo Phú Lâm – người dịch) thuộc quần đảo mà Bắc Kinh gọi là Tây Sa (tức Hoàng Sa – người dịch). Đó là hành động khởi đầu cho chuyến tuần tra dài ngày của Trung Quốc tại Biển Đông, kể từ căn cứ hải quân Tam Á trên Đảo Hải Nam.
Trung Quốc khẳng định chủ quyền nhiều nơi trên Biển Đông, như quần đảo Nam Sa, Tây Sa và Trung Sa, những nguyên đơn khác – gồm Việt Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei và Philippines – cũng đang tranh chấp chủ quyền trên các nhóm đảo và những đảo riêng lẻ. Họ gọi bằng các tên khác nhau chẳng hạn Quần đảo Trường Sa và Hoàng Sa, Bãi ngầm Scarborough và Macclesfield, chỉ đơn cử một vài trường hợp.
Bằng chứng về hoạt động bành trướng của Trung Quốc trên Biển Đông có thể xác định tại những điểm khống chế mặt bằng khó hiểu, chẳng hạn Đảo Phú Lâm thuộc Hoàng Sa, nơi Trung Quốc liên tục mở rộng và cải thiện đường băng, cũng như Bãi Vành Khăn xa xôi – khoảng 150 dặm về hướng Tây của Philippines, nơi Trung Quốc lập nên nhiều công trình xây dựng khác nhau. Láng giềng của Trung Quốc xem tiến trình này là hoạt động bành trướng và thậm chí thù địch, tuy đã cùng ký vào Tuyên bố chung về cách Ứng xử của các Bên trên Biển Đông năm 2002.
Theo một số chuyên gia an ninh, mục tiêu cuối cùng của Trung Quốc không đơn thuần việc xây dựng vùng kinh tế đặc quyền rộng lớn (EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone), mở rộng xuống tận phía Nam nơi Quần đảo Natuna giàu khí đốt mà Indonesia đã khẳng định chủ quyền. Họ cho rằng Trung Quốc muốn kiểm soát Biển Đông như một phần trong kế hoạch xây dựng lực lượng hải quân hùng mạnh hơn, với hạm đội tàu ngầm tên lửa đạn đạo hạt nhân (SSBN – nuclear ballistic missile submarine), trên những hải tuyến mở rộng từ Thái Bình Dương cho đến Ấn Độ Dương. Biển Đông là hải tuyến nhộn nhịp đứng hàng thứ hai thế giới, là cửa ngõ để Trung Quốc nhập khẩu dầu từ Vịnh Péc-xích cùng tài nguyên thiên nhiên từ Châu Phi.
“Các chiến đoàn hàng không mẫu hạm đầu tiên của Trung Quốc đặt căn cứ trên Đảo Hải Nam, và chúng sẽ tuần tra những tuyến vận chuyển tài nguyên này. Theo lãnh đạo chính trị Trung Quốc, kiểm soát Biển Đông là một mục tiêu then chốt nhằm đảm bảo sự tồn vong về kinh tế cũng như chính trị cho nền cai trị độc tài của Đảng Cộng sản,” Richard Fisher, học giả cao cấp thuộc Trung tâm Đánh giá và Chiến lược Quốc tế ở Washington, phát biểu.
Tuy nhiên, ông cho rằng Hoa Kỳ, Nhật Bản, Australia và nhiều nước thuộc Hiệp hội các Quốc gia Đông Nam Á (ASEAN) vẫn đang cản đường Trung Quốc.
“[Trung Quốc muốn] biến Biển Đông thành lãnh hải được bảo vệ sát sao cho hoạt động SSBN cho đến khi Đài Loan có thể cung cấp căn cứ tốt hơn cho những hoạt động SSBN,” Fisher nhận định. “Trung Quốc có thể đặt phân nửa số tên lửa hạt nhân trên các SSBN, tức họ sẽ dừng lại chỉ sau khi đã áp đặt được hình thức quản lý tương lai cho Biển Đông.” Hành động tăng cường sự hiện diện trên biển của Trung Quốc đồng nghĩa với việc Cục Quản lý Nhà nước về Tài nguyên Biển (SOA – State Oceanic Administration) và Cơ quan Giám sát Đường biển Trung Quốc (CMS – China Maritime Surveillance) muốn rằng ngư dân và tàu nghiên cứu đại dương di chuyển trên Biển Đông của các quốc gia khác trong vùng sẽ ngày càng phải giáp mặt nhiều hơn những tàu lớn hơn và tối tân hơn của Hải quân Giải phóng Nhân dân Trung Quốc (PLAN), trong đó có tàu Ngư Chính 311.
Biến cố hôm 16/03 chứng tỏ Bắc Kinh ngày càng tỏ ra sẵn sàng ra lệnh cho các tàu không thuộc PLAN, gồm những tàu thuộc hải đoàn SOA và CMS, thi hành các hành động vũ lực tại quần đảo Trường Sa – nhằm làm nhục những nước láng giềng, đặc biệt là Philippines. Sau khi tàu do thám USNS Impeccable của Hoa Kỳ bị tàu Trung Quốc quấy rối hôm 08/03, Trung Quốc đã triển khai cái họ gọi là tàu ngư chính (tuần tra ngư thuyền) – chứ không phải tàu chiến – nhằm bảo vệ quyền lợi của họ trên Biển Đông.
“Trung Quốc thiết tha muốn biến ý đồ kiểm soát Biển Đông thành một hành động gìn giữ trật tự mang tính đối đầu, trong khi Việt Nam, Philippines và các quốc gia khác về cơ bản chẳng làm gì cả,” Fisher phát biểu. “Trao cho cơ quan không thuộc PLAN những tàu lớn hơn cùng hỏa lực mạnh hơn có thể là một nỗ lực quân sự hóa mang tính giảm nhẹ, nhưng tác động gây bất ổn thì vẫn như nhau.”
Tranh chấp chủ quyền trên Biển Đông thường phát sinh xung đột, trong đó có cuộc đụng độ giữa tàu hải quân Trung Quốc và Việt Nam năm 1988 ở Bãi Đá Gạc Ma thuộc Quần đảo Trường Sa. Phiên họp chung hồi tháng trước tại Hà Nội, do Học viện Ngoại giao cùng Hội Luật gia Việt Nam đồng tổ chức, đã đi đến các hứa hẹn khởi động cuộc đối thoại đa phương về nhiều tuyên bố chủ quyền chồng lấn chưa được giải quyết trong khu vực.
“Tuy trong quá khứ Trung Quốc luôn cương quyết về những giải pháp song phương, song chẳng đạt được tiến bộ nào vì hầu hết tranh chấp đều cần sự nhượng bộ từ nhiều phía. Mục tiêu hội thảo là nhằm xây dựng lòng tin qua hai phiên thảo luận sơ bộ và không ràng buộc, đồng thời một tín hiệu tốt là các học giả Trung Quốc đã tham dự hội nghị vì điều này sẽ phản ánh mức độ chấp nhận nào đó bên phía Trung Quốc về cách tiếp cận đa phương nhằm gỡ rối xung đột,” Dutton phát biểu.
Theo một trong những người tham dự, Carlyle Thayer, giáo sư chính trị học tại Đại học New South Wales, Học viện Quốc phòng Australia, chẳng có phái đoàn quốc gia nào tham dự, các đại diện Trung Quốc được hoan nghênh chỉ đến từ trường đại học và tổ chức nghiên cứu chính sách (think tank). “Cuộc họp được gọi là hội thảo, chứ không phải hội nghị, nhằm tránh ấn tượng hy vọng rằng một loạt các kết luận dưới dạng một nghị quyết hay một tuyên bố sẽ được ban hành,” Thayer nhận định.
Sự kiện đã thành công trong việc xới lên những quan ngại trong khu vực về diễn biến Biển Đông, nơi cho là đang tàng trữ rất nhiều dầu khí, được “các đại biểu nhấn mạnh là đang chuyển biến hoặc có tiềm năng xấu,” Thayer phát biểu. “Đã nổi lên sự đồng thuận cho rằng một đề xuất phối hợp phát triển lâu dài phải được phục hồi để các nước tham gia tranh chấp xem xét.”
Bản đồ ngớ ngẩn
Thayer nhận định, bên cạnh sự kiện “chẳng có ai đại diện cho Trung Quốc,” quan trọng hơn có lẽ là “bản đồ chín đường đứt đoạn” do một học giả Trung Quốc trình bày, “hiện đang gây tranh luận”. Năm 1947, Chính phủ Tưởng Giới Thạch đưa ra tuyên bố Biển Đông với một bản đồ có 11 đường đứt đoạn.
Bản đồ này được Cộng sản Trung Quốc thừa nhận lúc họ lên nắm quyền và sau đó Thủ tướng Chu Ân Lai xóa đi hai đường trong Vịnh Bắc Bộ, giảm 11 đoạn về chín. Bản đồ không chính thức chứa chín đường đứt đoạn đã được lưu hành từ lâu. Các quan chức trong khu vực không thể yêu cầu Trung Quốc giải thích cơ sở nào đã tạo ra những đường đứt đoạn này và diện tích khu vực mà họ khẳng định chủ quyền, theo Thayer.
“Học giả Trung Quốc nói rõ rằng bản đồ Biển Đông chính thức có chứa chín đường đứt đoạn, thể hiện phạm vi mở rộng tối đa của những tuyên bố chủ quyền trong lịch sử của họ về khu vực này. Chuyên gia Trung Quốc lưu ý rằng vấn đề này có thể được thảo luận thêm,” Thayer cho hay. “Chẳng hạn, một học giả Trung Quốc đề nghị, nếu các nước khẳng định chủ quyền trên thềm lục địa mở rộng rút lại những khẳng định đó, một số khu vực bên trong đường đứt đoạn có thể tuân theo việc phát triển chung.”
Đề xuất này gắn liền với bản đăng ký thềm lục địa mở rộng do Việt Nam và Malaysia đệ trình hồi đầu năm theo thời hạn mà Liên Hiệp Quốc đã đề ra. Hai nước đăng ký chung các khu vực phía Nam, trong khi Việt Nam trình riêng bản đăng ký thềm lục địa mở rộng ở phía Bắc.
“Trung Quốc đã gửi công hàm phản đối kèm theo bản đồ chín đường đứt đoạn nhằm chỉ ra khu vực mà họ bảo là thuộc về Trung Quốc. Có vẻ đây là lần đầu tiên Chính phủ Trung Quốc đệ trình bản đồ này,” Thayer cho biết. “Trung Quốc đang cố tình theo đuổi chính sách mơ hồ có tính toán trong vấn đề này. Họ đang trì hoãn bất kỳ hòa giải nào về những tuyên bố chủ quyền lãnh hải gây tranh chấp cho đến lúc thích hợp với Bắc Kinh.”
Hiện đã có thảo luận về một hội thảo Biển Đông lần thứ hai tại Hà Nội vào giữa năm 2010. Dutton xác định một số đề mục có thể thảo luận. “Một bước đi tích cực là tổ chức diễn đàn đa phương mang tầm khu vực nhằm thảo luận nhiều dự án đa phương khả dĩ, có thể nghiên cứu phạm vi các trữ lượng hydrocarbon dưới Biển Đông,” Dutton phát biểu.
“Bước đi tích cực khác có thể bao gồm phát triển khuôn khổ quản lý đa phương về tài nguyên sinh vật, cùng một tổ chức mang tầm khu vực nhằm điều phối hoạt động đánh cá bền vững cho tất cả các bên liên quan, dựa trên hiệp ước cấp phát tổng lượng đánh bắt cho phép đối với những bên khác nhau. Các bước đi như thế sẽ giải quyết được một số thách thức ít rắc rối hơn, trong lúc tạm thời hoãn lại những vấn đề khó khăn liên quan đến chủ quyền,” ông nói.
Tuyên bố thành kiến
Dutton lưu ý rằng tranh luận bên trong Trung Quốc luôn khăng khăng về bản chất xác thực của các khẳng định chủ quyền và quyền tài phán nhà nước duyên hải của họ trên Biển Đông. Ngoài những vấn đề khác, rất có thể ở đây Trung Quốc sẽ thiên về giải pháp chính trị, thay vì giải pháp áp dụng một khuôn khổ pháp lý mà có thể phương hại đến các tuyên bố của họ, ông nhận định.
“Luật pháp bên trong Trung Quốc đã khẳng định chủ quyền trên mọi hòn đảo thuộc Biển Đông đồng thời còn khẳng định những lãnh hải và EEZ phát xuất từ các tuyên bố chủ quyền lãnh thổ của họ. Tuy nhiên, Trung Quốc có thể hưởng lợi nếu duy trì tình trạng mơ hồ về bản chất xác thực của những khẳng định pháp lý Biển Đông của họ,” Dutton phát biểu.
“Điều vô cùng quan trọng là việc hòa giải các tuyên bố của Trung Quốc trên Biển Đông không được áp dụng biện pháp pháp lý mà có thể ảnh hưởng đến những khẳng định chủ quyền của họ đối với Nhật Bản trên Biển Hoa Đông. Như vậy, từ quan điểm Trung Quốc, khuôn khổ pháp lý nhằm giải quyết các tranh chấp Biển Đông phải được triển khai sao cho không được phương hại đến những tuyên bố chủ quyền trên Biển Hoa Đông của họ.”
Dù có hay không khuôn khổ pháp lý, Thayer tin rằng Trung Quốc sẽ theo đuổi hành động gây chia rẽ các nước trong khu vực và nhắm vào những thỏa thuận song phương.
“Trung Quốc hiện đã bảo 10 thành viên thuộc Hiệp hội các Quốc gia Đông Nam Á rằng họ cần phải làm việc với nhau trước khi tiếp cận Trung Quốc để thảo luận về Biển Đông. Một số nước ASEAN cho rằng việc đạt được sự đồng thuận trong 10 quốc gia ASEAN sẽ gặp khó khăn, đồng thời một khối duy nhất chỉ tạo ra xích mích trong lúc đàm phán với Trung Quốc,” Thayer cho hay.
Tiếp sau hội thảo gần đây ở Hà Nội sẽ là vòng thảo luận khác về Biển Đông vào ngày 16/12. Vòng kế tiếp được gọi là những thảo luận về Thỏa thuận Tư vấn Quân sự Hàng hải (MMCA – Military Maritime Consultative Agreement) gồm các phái đoàn đến từ Trung Quốc và Hoa Kỳ. Cuộc họp sẽ diễn ra tại Trung tâm Nghiên cứu An ninh Châu Á – Thái Bình Dương ở Honolulu, Hawaii.
“Về cơ bản, Hội nghị Việt Nam là “bản nhạc thứ hai” nhằm thảo luận một số vấn đề, trong khi MMCA lại là “bản thứ nhất” về đối thoại quân-sự-với-quân-sự,” Dutton nhận định. “Hội nghị Việt Nam sẽ không tác động đến MMCA, vì vấn đề thảo luận khác nhau về cơ bản. Đại biểu tham dự Hội nghị Việt Nam đã thảo luận về vấn đề chủ quyền và quyền tài phán quốc gia, trong khi thảo luận của MMCA sẽ tập trung vào quyền tự do đi lại và việc sử dụng quân sự trên vùng biển ngoài bờ Trung Quốc.”
Thayer lưu ý rằng Đại sứ quán Hoa Kỳ tại Hà Nội đã không gửi quan sát viên ngoại giao của mình đến dự hội thảo, như vậy Hoa Kỳ đã đứng xa các tranh chấp chủ quyền và lãnh thổ trên Biển Đông. “Phiên họp MMCA kế tiếp có thể ngăn chặn hành động đối đầu trên biển, chẳng hạn vụ liên quan đến tàu USNS Impeccable. Nhưng ‘Thỏa thuận về Đối đầu trên Biển’ có thể phải mất từ một năm trở lên mới được ký kết,” Thayer phát biểu.
Thayer đề cập đến chuyến viếng thăm Hoa Kỳ hồi tháng 10 của Tướng Xu Caihou, Phó Chủ tịch Quân Ủy Trung ương. Tướng Xu xác định bốn trở ngại cho mối quan hệ quân sự Hoa Kỳ – Trung Quốc lành mạnh và ổn định, bắt đầu là Đài Loan, ông kêu gọi Hoa Kỳ chấm dứt hoạt động xâm nhập EEZ trên vùng biển Trung Quốc bằng máy bay quân sự và tàu thủy.
“Mục tiêu chính của Trung Quốc là khiến Hoa Kỳ giảm bớt, nếu không nói là chấm dứt, những hoạt động giám sát ven miền duyên hải Trung Quốc và đặc biệt là căn cứ hải quân trên Đảo Hải Nam,” Thayer nhận định.
Bên cạnh yêu cầu của Tướng Xu, Fisher còn cho hay một vị tướng PLA vừa nghỉ hưu đã công khai kêu gọi Trung Quốc gia tăng mạnh mẽ việc triển khai lực lượng quân sự của họ trên Biển Đông đồng thời xây dựng một căn cứ không quân trên Bãi Vành Khăn thuộc Quần đảo Trường Sa.
“Ngoài vấn đề chỉ cách xa đảo Palawan của Philippines 200 dặm, nó sẽ mở rộng phạm vi kiểm soát của PLA đến tận Eo biển Palawan, một hải tuyến thương mại sống còn đối với Nhật Bản, Hàn Quốc và Đài Loan,” Fisher phát biểu, mới đây ông đã viết một bài về vấn đề này. “Căn cứ không quân trên Bãi Vành Khăn sẽ tạo ra một thách thức an ninh ở cấp rất cao khiến Washington không thể bỏ qua.”
Các hòn đảo thuộc Đài Loan trên Biển Đông còn làm cho vấn đề càng phức tạp hơn. “Còn có những đảo nhỏ hơn sát với Hải Nam do Đài Loan chiếm giữ. Bắc Kinh có thể viện dẫn một số lý do, từ hoạt động quân sự đe dọa nhắm vào cơ sở hạt nhân trên Hải Nam, cho đến tham vọng tạo ra tình trạng bất ổn tại Đài Loan, để xâm chiếm chúng,” Fisher cho hay.
“Nhờ đầu tư cả chục năm vào lực lượng lính thủy đánh bộ, PLA có thể dễ dành đánh chiếm những hòn đảo này. Ngoài việc từ lâu thừa nhận chính sách ‘Một Trung Quốc’ của Bắc Kinh, rất khó xảy ra khả năng bất kỳ quốc gia Châu Á nào sẽ phản ứng theo cách bảo vệ quyền lợi to lớn hơn của Trung Quốc.”
Biển Đông và ngay cả Đài Loan đã không còn là tầm quan trọng chiến lược đối với Hoa Kỳ như trong thời kỳ Chiến tranh Lạnh. Nhưng Trung Quốc không nên xem lập trường ngày càng “vô tư” này là hiển nhiên. Chiến lược của Hoa Kỳ có thể sẽ chuyển biến, gia tăng theo hoạt động quân sự của Trung Quốc bên trong khu vực. Đồng thời vẫn còn quá sớm nếu cho rằng hội thảo Hà Nội đặc biệt mở ra một chương mới quan trọng về cách giải quyết của Trung Quốc với các nước láng giềng.
“Việc tiếp tục thể hiện thái độ trung lập của Hoa Kỳ sẽ chỉ phục vụ cho việc đẩy nhanh đến ngày Trung Quốc thành kẻ bá quyền phi dân chủ trong khu vực, với khả năng sử dụng những áp lực kinh tế và quân sự to lớn nhằm buộc các nước trong vùng tuân theo ý muốn của họ,” Fisher phát biểu.
Peter J Brown là một nhà văn tự do sống ở tiểu bang Maine – Hoa Kỳ.
BVN dịch
http://bauxitevietn am.info/c/ 20860.html
Peter J Brown, Asia Times Online, ngày 08/12/2009
Nguồn: http://www.atimes. com/atimes/ Southeast_ Asia/KL08Ae01. html
Ngay lúc một nhóm chuyên gia bay đến Hà Nội hồi tháng trước để dự hội thảo lần đầu tiên qui tụ nhiều nước có tuyên bố chủ quyền chồng lấn ở Biển Đông, tàu giám hộ đánh cá lớn nhất Trung Quốc, Ngư Chính 311, đã thả neo tại Đảo Vĩnh Hưng (tức Đảo Phú Lâm – người dịch) thuộc quần đảo mà Bắc Kinh gọi là Tây Sa (tức Hoàng Sa – người dịch). Đó là hành động khởi đầu cho chuyến tuần tra dài ngày của Trung Quốc tại Biển Đông, kể từ căn cứ hải quân Tam Á trên Đảo Hải Nam.
Trung Quốc khẳng định chủ quyền nhiều nơi trên Biển Đông, như quần đảo Nam Sa, Tây Sa và Trung Sa, những nguyên đơn khác – gồm Việt Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei và Philippines – cũng đang tranh chấp chủ quyền trên các nhóm đảo và những đảo riêng lẻ. Họ gọi bằng các tên khác nhau chẳng hạn Quần đảo Trường Sa và Hoàng Sa, Bãi ngầm Scarborough và Macclesfield, chỉ đơn cử một vài trường hợp.
Bằng chứng về hoạt động bành trướng của Trung Quốc trên Biển Đông có thể xác định tại những điểm khống chế mặt bằng khó hiểu, chẳng hạn Đảo Phú Lâm thuộc Hoàng Sa, nơi Trung Quốc liên tục mở rộng và cải thiện đường băng, cũng như Bãi Vành Khăn xa xôi – khoảng 150 dặm về hướng Tây của Philippines, nơi Trung Quốc lập nên nhiều công trình xây dựng khác nhau. Láng giềng của Trung Quốc xem tiến trình này là hoạt động bành trướng và thậm chí thù địch, tuy đã cùng ký vào Tuyên bố chung về cách Ứng xử của các Bên trên Biển Đông năm 2002.
Theo một số chuyên gia an ninh, mục tiêu cuối cùng của Trung Quốc không đơn thuần việc xây dựng vùng kinh tế đặc quyền rộng lớn (EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone), mở rộng xuống tận phía Nam nơi Quần đảo Natuna giàu khí đốt mà Indonesia đã khẳng định chủ quyền. Họ cho rằng Trung Quốc muốn kiểm soát Biển Đông như một phần trong kế hoạch xây dựng lực lượng hải quân hùng mạnh hơn, với hạm đội tàu ngầm tên lửa đạn đạo hạt nhân (SSBN – nuclear ballistic missile submarine), trên những hải tuyến mở rộng từ Thái Bình Dương cho đến Ấn Độ Dương. Biển Đông là hải tuyến nhộn nhịp đứng hàng thứ hai thế giới, là cửa ngõ để Trung Quốc nhập khẩu dầu từ Vịnh Péc-xích cùng tài nguyên thiên nhiên từ Châu Phi.
“Các chiến đoàn hàng không mẫu hạm đầu tiên của Trung Quốc đặt căn cứ trên Đảo Hải Nam, và chúng sẽ tuần tra những tuyến vận chuyển tài nguyên này. Theo lãnh đạo chính trị Trung Quốc, kiểm soát Biển Đông là một mục tiêu then chốt nhằm đảm bảo sự tồn vong về kinh tế cũng như chính trị cho nền cai trị độc tài của Đảng Cộng sản,” Richard Fisher, học giả cao cấp thuộc Trung tâm Đánh giá và Chiến lược Quốc tế ở Washington, phát biểu.
Tuy nhiên, ông cho rằng Hoa Kỳ, Nhật Bản, Australia và nhiều nước thuộc Hiệp hội các Quốc gia Đông Nam Á (ASEAN) vẫn đang cản đường Trung Quốc.
“[Trung Quốc muốn] biến Biển Đông thành lãnh hải được bảo vệ sát sao cho hoạt động SSBN cho đến khi Đài Loan có thể cung cấp căn cứ tốt hơn cho những hoạt động SSBN,” Fisher nhận định. “Trung Quốc có thể đặt phân nửa số tên lửa hạt nhân trên các SSBN, tức họ sẽ dừng lại chỉ sau khi đã áp đặt được hình thức quản lý tương lai cho Biển Đông.” Hành động tăng cường sự hiện diện trên biển của Trung Quốc đồng nghĩa với việc Cục Quản lý Nhà nước về Tài nguyên Biển (SOA – State Oceanic Administration) và Cơ quan Giám sát Đường biển Trung Quốc (CMS – China Maritime Surveillance) muốn rằng ngư dân và tàu nghiên cứu đại dương di chuyển trên Biển Đông của các quốc gia khác trong vùng sẽ ngày càng phải giáp mặt nhiều hơn những tàu lớn hơn và tối tân hơn của Hải quân Giải phóng Nhân dân Trung Quốc (PLAN), trong đó có tàu Ngư Chính 311.
Biến cố hôm 16/03 chứng tỏ Bắc Kinh ngày càng tỏ ra sẵn sàng ra lệnh cho các tàu không thuộc PLAN, gồm những tàu thuộc hải đoàn SOA và CMS, thi hành các hành động vũ lực tại quần đảo Trường Sa – nhằm làm nhục những nước láng giềng, đặc biệt là Philippines. Sau khi tàu do thám USNS Impeccable của Hoa Kỳ bị tàu Trung Quốc quấy rối hôm 08/03, Trung Quốc đã triển khai cái họ gọi là tàu ngư chính (tuần tra ngư thuyền) – chứ không phải tàu chiến – nhằm bảo vệ quyền lợi của họ trên Biển Đông.
“Trung Quốc thiết tha muốn biến ý đồ kiểm soát Biển Đông thành một hành động gìn giữ trật tự mang tính đối đầu, trong khi Việt Nam, Philippines và các quốc gia khác về cơ bản chẳng làm gì cả,” Fisher phát biểu. “Trao cho cơ quan không thuộc PLAN những tàu lớn hơn cùng hỏa lực mạnh hơn có thể là một nỗ lực quân sự hóa mang tính giảm nhẹ, nhưng tác động gây bất ổn thì vẫn như nhau.”
Tranh chấp chủ quyền trên Biển Đông thường phát sinh xung đột, trong đó có cuộc đụng độ giữa tàu hải quân Trung Quốc và Việt Nam năm 1988 ở Bãi Đá Gạc Ma thuộc Quần đảo Trường Sa. Phiên họp chung hồi tháng trước tại Hà Nội, do Học viện Ngoại giao cùng Hội Luật gia Việt Nam đồng tổ chức, đã đi đến các hứa hẹn khởi động cuộc đối thoại đa phương về nhiều tuyên bố chủ quyền chồng lấn chưa được giải quyết trong khu vực.
“Tuy trong quá khứ Trung Quốc luôn cương quyết về những giải pháp song phương, song chẳng đạt được tiến bộ nào vì hầu hết tranh chấp đều cần sự nhượng bộ từ nhiều phía. Mục tiêu hội thảo là nhằm xây dựng lòng tin qua hai phiên thảo luận sơ bộ và không ràng buộc, đồng thời một tín hiệu tốt là các học giả Trung Quốc đã tham dự hội nghị vì điều này sẽ phản ánh mức độ chấp nhận nào đó bên phía Trung Quốc về cách tiếp cận đa phương nhằm gỡ rối xung đột,” Dutton phát biểu.
Theo một trong những người tham dự, Carlyle Thayer, giáo sư chính trị học tại Đại học New South Wales, Học viện Quốc phòng Australia, chẳng có phái đoàn quốc gia nào tham dự, các đại diện Trung Quốc được hoan nghênh chỉ đến từ trường đại học và tổ chức nghiên cứu chính sách (think tank). “Cuộc họp được gọi là hội thảo, chứ không phải hội nghị, nhằm tránh ấn tượng hy vọng rằng một loạt các kết luận dưới dạng một nghị quyết hay một tuyên bố sẽ được ban hành,” Thayer nhận định.
Sự kiện đã thành công trong việc xới lên những quan ngại trong khu vực về diễn biến Biển Đông, nơi cho là đang tàng trữ rất nhiều dầu khí, được “các đại biểu nhấn mạnh là đang chuyển biến hoặc có tiềm năng xấu,” Thayer phát biểu. “Đã nổi lên sự đồng thuận cho rằng một đề xuất phối hợp phát triển lâu dài phải được phục hồi để các nước tham gia tranh chấp xem xét.”
Bản đồ ngớ ngẩn
Thayer nhận định, bên cạnh sự kiện “chẳng có ai đại diện cho Trung Quốc,” quan trọng hơn có lẽ là “bản đồ chín đường đứt đoạn” do một học giả Trung Quốc trình bày, “hiện đang gây tranh luận”. Năm 1947, Chính phủ Tưởng Giới Thạch đưa ra tuyên bố Biển Đông với một bản đồ có 11 đường đứt đoạn.
Bản đồ này được Cộng sản Trung Quốc thừa nhận lúc họ lên nắm quyền và sau đó Thủ tướng Chu Ân Lai xóa đi hai đường trong Vịnh Bắc Bộ, giảm 11 đoạn về chín. Bản đồ không chính thức chứa chín đường đứt đoạn đã được lưu hành từ lâu. Các quan chức trong khu vực không thể yêu cầu Trung Quốc giải thích cơ sở nào đã tạo ra những đường đứt đoạn này và diện tích khu vực mà họ khẳng định chủ quyền, theo Thayer.
“Học giả Trung Quốc nói rõ rằng bản đồ Biển Đông chính thức có chứa chín đường đứt đoạn, thể hiện phạm vi mở rộng tối đa của những tuyên bố chủ quyền trong lịch sử của họ về khu vực này. Chuyên gia Trung Quốc lưu ý rằng vấn đề này có thể được thảo luận thêm,” Thayer cho hay. “Chẳng hạn, một học giả Trung Quốc đề nghị, nếu các nước khẳng định chủ quyền trên thềm lục địa mở rộng rút lại những khẳng định đó, một số khu vực bên trong đường đứt đoạn có thể tuân theo việc phát triển chung.”
Đề xuất này gắn liền với bản đăng ký thềm lục địa mở rộng do Việt Nam và Malaysia đệ trình hồi đầu năm theo thời hạn mà Liên Hiệp Quốc đã đề ra. Hai nước đăng ký chung các khu vực phía Nam, trong khi Việt Nam trình riêng bản đăng ký thềm lục địa mở rộng ở phía Bắc.
“Trung Quốc đã gửi công hàm phản đối kèm theo bản đồ chín đường đứt đoạn nhằm chỉ ra khu vực mà họ bảo là thuộc về Trung Quốc. Có vẻ đây là lần đầu tiên Chính phủ Trung Quốc đệ trình bản đồ này,” Thayer cho biết. “Trung Quốc đang cố tình theo đuổi chính sách mơ hồ có tính toán trong vấn đề này. Họ đang trì hoãn bất kỳ hòa giải nào về những tuyên bố chủ quyền lãnh hải gây tranh chấp cho đến lúc thích hợp với Bắc Kinh.”
Hiện đã có thảo luận về một hội thảo Biển Đông lần thứ hai tại Hà Nội vào giữa năm 2010. Dutton xác định một số đề mục có thể thảo luận. “Một bước đi tích cực là tổ chức diễn đàn đa phương mang tầm khu vực nhằm thảo luận nhiều dự án đa phương khả dĩ, có thể nghiên cứu phạm vi các trữ lượng hydrocarbon dưới Biển Đông,” Dutton phát biểu.
“Bước đi tích cực khác có thể bao gồm phát triển khuôn khổ quản lý đa phương về tài nguyên sinh vật, cùng một tổ chức mang tầm khu vực nhằm điều phối hoạt động đánh cá bền vững cho tất cả các bên liên quan, dựa trên hiệp ước cấp phát tổng lượng đánh bắt cho phép đối với những bên khác nhau. Các bước đi như thế sẽ giải quyết được một số thách thức ít rắc rối hơn, trong lúc tạm thời hoãn lại những vấn đề khó khăn liên quan đến chủ quyền,” ông nói.
Tuyên bố thành kiến
Dutton lưu ý rằng tranh luận bên trong Trung Quốc luôn khăng khăng về bản chất xác thực của các khẳng định chủ quyền và quyền tài phán nhà nước duyên hải của họ trên Biển Đông. Ngoài những vấn đề khác, rất có thể ở đây Trung Quốc sẽ thiên về giải pháp chính trị, thay vì giải pháp áp dụng một khuôn khổ pháp lý mà có thể phương hại đến các tuyên bố của họ, ông nhận định.
“Luật pháp bên trong Trung Quốc đã khẳng định chủ quyền trên mọi hòn đảo thuộc Biển Đông đồng thời còn khẳng định những lãnh hải và EEZ phát xuất từ các tuyên bố chủ quyền lãnh thổ của họ. Tuy nhiên, Trung Quốc có thể hưởng lợi nếu duy trì tình trạng mơ hồ về bản chất xác thực của những khẳng định pháp lý Biển Đông của họ,” Dutton phát biểu.
“Điều vô cùng quan trọng là việc hòa giải các tuyên bố của Trung Quốc trên Biển Đông không được áp dụng biện pháp pháp lý mà có thể ảnh hưởng đến những khẳng định chủ quyền của họ đối với Nhật Bản trên Biển Hoa Đông. Như vậy, từ quan điểm Trung Quốc, khuôn khổ pháp lý nhằm giải quyết các tranh chấp Biển Đông phải được triển khai sao cho không được phương hại đến những tuyên bố chủ quyền trên Biển Hoa Đông của họ.”
Dù có hay không khuôn khổ pháp lý, Thayer tin rằng Trung Quốc sẽ theo đuổi hành động gây chia rẽ các nước trong khu vực và nhắm vào những thỏa thuận song phương.
“Trung Quốc hiện đã bảo 10 thành viên thuộc Hiệp hội các Quốc gia Đông Nam Á rằng họ cần phải làm việc với nhau trước khi tiếp cận Trung Quốc để thảo luận về Biển Đông. Một số nước ASEAN cho rằng việc đạt được sự đồng thuận trong 10 quốc gia ASEAN sẽ gặp khó khăn, đồng thời một khối duy nhất chỉ tạo ra xích mích trong lúc đàm phán với Trung Quốc,” Thayer cho hay.
Tiếp sau hội thảo gần đây ở Hà Nội sẽ là vòng thảo luận khác về Biển Đông vào ngày 16/12. Vòng kế tiếp được gọi là những thảo luận về Thỏa thuận Tư vấn Quân sự Hàng hải (MMCA – Military Maritime Consultative Agreement) gồm các phái đoàn đến từ Trung Quốc và Hoa Kỳ. Cuộc họp sẽ diễn ra tại Trung tâm Nghiên cứu An ninh Châu Á – Thái Bình Dương ở Honolulu, Hawaii.
“Về cơ bản, Hội nghị Việt Nam là “bản nhạc thứ hai” nhằm thảo luận một số vấn đề, trong khi MMCA lại là “bản thứ nhất” về đối thoại quân-sự-với-quân-sự,” Dutton nhận định. “Hội nghị Việt Nam sẽ không tác động đến MMCA, vì vấn đề thảo luận khác nhau về cơ bản. Đại biểu tham dự Hội nghị Việt Nam đã thảo luận về vấn đề chủ quyền và quyền tài phán quốc gia, trong khi thảo luận của MMCA sẽ tập trung vào quyền tự do đi lại và việc sử dụng quân sự trên vùng biển ngoài bờ Trung Quốc.”
Thayer lưu ý rằng Đại sứ quán Hoa Kỳ tại Hà Nội đã không gửi quan sát viên ngoại giao của mình đến dự hội thảo, như vậy Hoa Kỳ đã đứng xa các tranh chấp chủ quyền và lãnh thổ trên Biển Đông. “Phiên họp MMCA kế tiếp có thể ngăn chặn hành động đối đầu trên biển, chẳng hạn vụ liên quan đến tàu USNS Impeccable. Nhưng ‘Thỏa thuận về Đối đầu trên Biển’ có thể phải mất từ một năm trở lên mới được ký kết,” Thayer phát biểu.
Thayer đề cập đến chuyến viếng thăm Hoa Kỳ hồi tháng 10 của Tướng Xu Caihou, Phó Chủ tịch Quân Ủy Trung ương. Tướng Xu xác định bốn trở ngại cho mối quan hệ quân sự Hoa Kỳ – Trung Quốc lành mạnh và ổn định, bắt đầu là Đài Loan, ông kêu gọi Hoa Kỳ chấm dứt hoạt động xâm nhập EEZ trên vùng biển Trung Quốc bằng máy bay quân sự và tàu thủy.
“Mục tiêu chính của Trung Quốc là khiến Hoa Kỳ giảm bớt, nếu không nói là chấm dứt, những hoạt động giám sát ven miền duyên hải Trung Quốc và đặc biệt là căn cứ hải quân trên Đảo Hải Nam,” Thayer nhận định.
Bên cạnh yêu cầu của Tướng Xu, Fisher còn cho hay một vị tướng PLA vừa nghỉ hưu đã công khai kêu gọi Trung Quốc gia tăng mạnh mẽ việc triển khai lực lượng quân sự của họ trên Biển Đông đồng thời xây dựng một căn cứ không quân trên Bãi Vành Khăn thuộc Quần đảo Trường Sa.
“Ngoài vấn đề chỉ cách xa đảo Palawan của Philippines 200 dặm, nó sẽ mở rộng phạm vi kiểm soát của PLA đến tận Eo biển Palawan, một hải tuyến thương mại sống còn đối với Nhật Bản, Hàn Quốc và Đài Loan,” Fisher phát biểu, mới đây ông đã viết một bài về vấn đề này. “Căn cứ không quân trên Bãi Vành Khăn sẽ tạo ra một thách thức an ninh ở cấp rất cao khiến Washington không thể bỏ qua.”
Các hòn đảo thuộc Đài Loan trên Biển Đông còn làm cho vấn đề càng phức tạp hơn. “Còn có những đảo nhỏ hơn sát với Hải Nam do Đài Loan chiếm giữ. Bắc Kinh có thể viện dẫn một số lý do, từ hoạt động quân sự đe dọa nhắm vào cơ sở hạt nhân trên Hải Nam, cho đến tham vọng tạo ra tình trạng bất ổn tại Đài Loan, để xâm chiếm chúng,” Fisher cho hay.
“Nhờ đầu tư cả chục năm vào lực lượng lính thủy đánh bộ, PLA có thể dễ dành đánh chiếm những hòn đảo này. Ngoài việc từ lâu thừa nhận chính sách ‘Một Trung Quốc’ của Bắc Kinh, rất khó xảy ra khả năng bất kỳ quốc gia Châu Á nào sẽ phản ứng theo cách bảo vệ quyền lợi to lớn hơn của Trung Quốc.”
Biển Đông và ngay cả Đài Loan đã không còn là tầm quan trọng chiến lược đối với Hoa Kỳ như trong thời kỳ Chiến tranh Lạnh. Nhưng Trung Quốc không nên xem lập trường ngày càng “vô tư” này là hiển nhiên. Chiến lược của Hoa Kỳ có thể sẽ chuyển biến, gia tăng theo hoạt động quân sự của Trung Quốc bên trong khu vực. Đồng thời vẫn còn quá sớm nếu cho rằng hội thảo Hà Nội đặc biệt mở ra một chương mới quan trọng về cách giải quyết của Trung Quốc với các nước láng giềng.
“Việc tiếp tục thể hiện thái độ trung lập của Hoa Kỳ sẽ chỉ phục vụ cho việc đẩy nhanh đến ngày Trung Quốc thành kẻ bá quyền phi dân chủ trong khu vực, với khả năng sử dụng những áp lực kinh tế và quân sự to lớn nhằm buộc các nước trong vùng tuân theo ý muốn của họ,” Fisher phát biểu.
Peter J Brown là một nhà văn tự do sống ở tiểu bang Maine – Hoa Kỳ.
BVN dịch
http://bauxitevietn am.info/c/ 20860.html
China, an evil and enduring empire
China, an evil and enduring empire
This is a work in progress. I will refine it as I go along. Meanwhile
I'm sharing with you my rudimentary thoughts in a form of brief notes.
I need to write them while they're fresh. My memory is not what it
used to be.
All inputs are welcome.
1. While empires come and go--- most lasted on the average for 250-500
years (Roman Empire sputtered along and finally collapsed when the
Turks seized Constantinople in mid 15th century---, China has proven to
be the exception to the rule. It is an empire which has lasted for two
thousand years and now finds itself poised to expand its territory
after a respite for about two hundred years.
2. Causes of longevity:
2.1. Unity of culture through imposition of unifying system of
thoughts such as Confucianism, Yin and Yang.
2.2. Unity of language through a writing system. Now Mandarin is a
required dialect throughout the empire.
2.3. Ferocious policy of assimilation. A distinct feature. While other
conquering peoples sometimes looked down on the conquered races and
frowned upon miscegenation, the Han Chinese have actively promoted
assimilation.
2.4. High level of civilization
Conquered peoples were comparatively backward and lacked the ferocious
will to resist except the Koreans and the Vuetnamese.
2.5. Unquenchable desire to live. Like the Jews, but of course far
more numerous, the Chinese have a zest for life. They want to live and
at any price. They will eat anything that is edible, including dirt
(for minerals) and human flesh. Cannibalism is common in China in
times of economic hardships.
2.6. Ruthlessness in preserving empire.
A people who routinely practice cannibalism to survive will stop at
nothing to protect itself. Due to its size and its long history of
fragmenation and reunification, central governments in China are known
for ruthlessness in enforcing their will. The massacre of Tiananmen
Square was nothing in the eyes of rulers. Respect for human life as a
cardinal rule does not exist in the mindset of the Chinese. That's why
I call it an evil empire. Note the lax standards in their food
industry. The toilets in Chinese restaurants are notoriously filthy.
Profit is the primary motive. The hell with welfare of the customers.
Fake medicine is not unheard of. Environmental and ecological concerns
are brushed aside. Living for today, who cares about tomorrow. Me
first, screw everybody else. Survival is the key and at any price. No
price is too high. Survival of individuals at the individual level.
Survival of the ruling clique in the name of the State as a ruling
mechanism. It is the mindset grounded on the principle of naked
survival, pressured by overpopulation. Pragmatism rules the Chinese,
not principles or high ideals. Note on how they trade and conduct
themselves on foreign affairs. Profits and self-interests are their
paramount concerns, not niceties like respect for human rights because
they themselves have never respected human lives, let alone human
rights. When China rules Vietnam this time, the French and the
American brutality on the batlle fields will be seen as benign
compared to the Chinese brutal, merciless suppression of us. Look at
how they are treating the Uighurs in Xinjiang and be prepared.
3. Plan of expansion
North Korea and Vietnam are already satellite states. North Korea is hard to
swallow because of the nuclear weapons and missiles the North Koreans
possess. Besides, the U. S. which maintains troops in the South might
pose a problem. So the logical prey is Vietnam which is weak under the
inept "leadership" of the VC. China is now exploring oil close to the
shores of Vietnam on top of having incorporated the HS and TS Islands.
Push cones to shove and war breaks out in the East Sea. Full scale
military invasion begins. Vietnam collapses within two weeks. Truce
will be declared. Peace treaty will be signed. Vietnam will lose more
territories, sea and LAND. Nominally, Hanoi regime is in control of
the remnant of Vietnam, but acts as a stooge for China.
Everybody knows where Vietnam goes, Cambodia and Laos will follow.
Having Indochina firmly under their control, China is looking at the
next prey: Myanmar where China already has a strong influence. Beyond
Myanmar, Sri Lanka where once again China has secured cooperation
through military aid and trade. Next comes Thailand. Alarmed, Thailand
is pleading with the West and Australia to do something, but these
countries have economic problems and need China to cure their problems
so they won't intervene.
Whoever has espoused or repeated the nonsense that China is feeling
encircled by its enemies is on the payrolls of his master. He is a
traitor if he is a Vietnamese. He is the modern day T3 (Ton Tho Tuong)
and needs to be dealt with accordingly. He is a shameless China lover.
The Chinks are on the prowl.
The Chinks are coming.
Watch out.
Peoples in Southeast Asia, get united and resist NOW before it's
too late.
Wissai
This is a work in progress. I will refine it as I go along. Meanwhile
I'm sharing with you my rudimentary thoughts in a form of brief notes.
I need to write them while they're fresh. My memory is not what it
used to be.
All inputs are welcome.
1. While empires come and go--- most lasted on the average for 250-500
years (Roman Empire sputtered along and finally collapsed when the
Turks seized Constantinople in mid 15th century---, China has proven to
be the exception to the rule. It is an empire which has lasted for two
thousand years and now finds itself poised to expand its territory
after a respite for about two hundred years.
2. Causes of longevity:
2.1. Unity of culture through imposition of unifying system of
thoughts such as Confucianism, Yin and Yang.
2.2. Unity of language through a writing system. Now Mandarin is a
required dialect throughout the empire.
2.3. Ferocious policy of assimilation. A distinct feature. While other
conquering peoples sometimes looked down on the conquered races and
frowned upon miscegenation, the Han Chinese have actively promoted
assimilation.
2.4. High level of civilization
Conquered peoples were comparatively backward and lacked the ferocious
will to resist except the Koreans and the Vuetnamese.
2.5. Unquenchable desire to live. Like the Jews, but of course far
more numerous, the Chinese have a zest for life. They want to live and
at any price. They will eat anything that is edible, including dirt
(for minerals) and human flesh. Cannibalism is common in China in
times of economic hardships.
2.6. Ruthlessness in preserving empire.
A people who routinely practice cannibalism to survive will stop at
nothing to protect itself. Due to its size and its long history of
fragmenation and reunification, central governments in China are known
for ruthlessness in enforcing their will. The massacre of Tiananmen
Square was nothing in the eyes of rulers. Respect for human life as a
cardinal rule does not exist in the mindset of the Chinese. That's why
I call it an evil empire. Note the lax standards in their food
industry. The toilets in Chinese restaurants are notoriously filthy.
Profit is the primary motive. The hell with welfare of the customers.
Fake medicine is not unheard of. Environmental and ecological concerns
are brushed aside. Living for today, who cares about tomorrow. Me
first, screw everybody else. Survival is the key and at any price. No
price is too high. Survival of individuals at the individual level.
Survival of the ruling clique in the name of the State as a ruling
mechanism. It is the mindset grounded on the principle of naked
survival, pressured by overpopulation. Pragmatism rules the Chinese,
not principles or high ideals. Note on how they trade and conduct
themselves on foreign affairs. Profits and self-interests are their
paramount concerns, not niceties like respect for human rights because
they themselves have never respected human lives, let alone human
rights. When China rules Vietnam this time, the French and the
American brutality on the batlle fields will be seen as benign
compared to the Chinese brutal, merciless suppression of us. Look at
how they are treating the Uighurs in Xinjiang and be prepared.
3. Plan of expansion
North Korea and Vietnam are already satellite states. North Korea is hard to
swallow because of the nuclear weapons and missiles the North Koreans
possess. Besides, the U. S. which maintains troops in the South might
pose a problem. So the logical prey is Vietnam which is weak under the
inept "leadership" of the VC. China is now exploring oil close to the
shores of Vietnam on top of having incorporated the HS and TS Islands.
Push cones to shove and war breaks out in the East Sea. Full scale
military invasion begins. Vietnam collapses within two weeks. Truce
will be declared. Peace treaty will be signed. Vietnam will lose more
territories, sea and LAND. Nominally, Hanoi regime is in control of
the remnant of Vietnam, but acts as a stooge for China.
Everybody knows where Vietnam goes, Cambodia and Laos will follow.
Having Indochina firmly under their control, China is looking at the
next prey: Myanmar where China already has a strong influence. Beyond
Myanmar, Sri Lanka where once again China has secured cooperation
through military aid and trade. Next comes Thailand. Alarmed, Thailand
is pleading with the West and Australia to do something, but these
countries have economic problems and need China to cure their problems
so they won't intervene.
Whoever has espoused or repeated the nonsense that China is feeling
encircled by its enemies is on the payrolls of his master. He is a
traitor if he is a Vietnamese. He is the modern day T3 (Ton Tho Tuong)
and needs to be dealt with accordingly. He is a shameless China lover.
The Chinks are on the prowl.
The Chinks are coming.
Watch out.
Peoples in Southeast Asia, get united and resist NOW before it's
too late.
Wissai
Another 'Story"
Another "story"
A woman told you to write a story about her life because she thought
her life was interesting and worthy of dissemination. You told her
that you are not a professional writer, a storyteller for hire, You
further explained to her that occasionally you set words on paper in
spite of your lack of narrating skills because you are weak-willed and
at the mercy of an inner voice which torments you and forces you to
pick up the pen. You write because you want to silence the voice,
otherwise you would go crazy and do something really stupid. Being
laughed at is better than being in jail.
You coldly told her that her life was not that interesting and you
were quite sure that nobody, besides her father confessor, wanted to
listen to it. You would rather write about your own life, instead. You
have an ego and absolutely think your life is the movie material,
maybe even suitable for a play, a tragedy of Shakespearean scope and
dimensions. If only you had the narrating skills. Vanity is thy name.
But she persisted. She didn't give up. She even sent you an outline of
what the story of her life should entail. You are in a quandary. Some
of your last forays into fiction writing involved a woman who coldly
walked away from you and a malajusted man who committed suicide,
prompting some nasty comments from an unoriginal (read: plagiarizing),
pseudo-artistic mind. He should realize all fiction writers are
embellishers at heart. They have an over-heated imagination which has
to be satisfied. They don't need to engage in lying in everyday life
because they can do that in their literary lives and it's more fun
that way. Lying is an art. Only a few can be called bullshit artists,
though many certainly have tried.
An early winter storm is gathering. Northern winds are blustering.
Temperature is plummeting. The sky is overcast. Weathermen are
forecasting sleet and snow . A man is pulling into a roadside motel
parking lot as darkness descends over town. He is not getting out of
the car. Tears are streaming down his face. The radio is on. A song
from Bread's "Baby, I am-a want you" is bringing back sentiments he
has long suppressed. Love was short, but memory is forever. It has a
life of its own.
The motel is one of those inexpensive establishments managed by people
from South Asia. It is not very clean. The reception office also
functions as the living quarters for the manager's family. It has an
unpleasant choking smell of lingering curry. He just needs a place to
take a warm leisurely bath and then crash for the night. Hopefully, by
tomorrow the weather wil improve and he could be on his way.
His room is at the far end of the north side of the motel. As soon as
he gets inside the room, he turns on the faucet in the bathtub.. As he
gets older, he prefers a bath to a shower. Warm, refreshing water
soothes his body and nerves whenever he wants immediate soothing. He
closes his eyes while images of Laura, the one who could easily stand
for the woman Bread was crooning about are flashing through his mind
and he just killed her. Killing her was far easier than he had
thought. Right now, the problem is eluding justice and punishment. He
does not really care if the law will catch up with him. He is tired
from long driving. He feels confident he will be able to sleep. He
does not feel anxious or remorseful. He just feels numb. He was
suffering. He was angry. Now he is numb to the core, yet he wonders
where the tears came from while he was sitting in the car. Is music
such powerful, such primordial, capable of bringing to the fore in an
instant long suppressed memories?
The irony was that Laura did not sweep off his feet when he first met
her. He wanted very much not to like her, but the fact he wound up
falling in love with her amounted to a painful personal failure. At
first, he thought he was just fooling her and himself, but it turned
out his feelings for her were not apocryphal at all. The problem was
she had told him that her mother didn't approve of her getting too
close to him on account that his family was not well off enough. He
should have got all upset and walked away, but he didn't because he
loved her. He was stupid. Love made a person do stupid things. Like
his loving her without a future together and then killing her in a fit
of anger after thirty eight years when he had told himself over and
over during waking hours that he no longer loved her after she
brutally left him for another man, barely two years after they both
graduated from college.
He was tired all of the sudden, on top of being numb from blocking out
all feelings, including those of remorse. He got out of the tub, dried
himself, and jumped into bed. Even though he had turned off all the
lights, there was a faint light from the parking lot sneaking in
through the curtain. He looked at the clock on the night table. It
said 8 pm. Way before his normal bedtime. But he would try to get some
sleep. Sleep would come eventually, if he just kept closing his eyes.
Tomorrow would be a long drive. Miles to go before he could be in bed
again.
You are tired yourself, just from thinking about the predicament he
found himself, all because she said, "Go away, you are a damned
fucking loser. I don't know you. And don't ever come back.." and he
pulled the trigger. You are tired of writing down the story as he
told you. You don't feel like keeping your word. You promised him you
would write his story, the story of pains and sorrows, of misplaced
affection, of betrayal and violence, of the sheer meaninglessness of
it all. But now you are writing your own story, with no particular
order. You would just let your subsconscious take over and your
fingers fly over the keyboard. Fuck the cogency and coherence. You are
not going to send it to any publisher. Nobody is going to want it. You
only have this desire to spill your guts out.
Life is a process full of ironies. The more I live, the more I see
ironies around me, and about me, too. When I was a young boy, I
starved for affection and attention because I didn't get it at home.
What I got was stern lecturings and a lot of beatings. I managed to
grow up and get some education, without spending time in jail though I
had several close calls. I did not do any dating during high school,
not because I was ugly or anything. In fact, I was a handsome devil,
but I was busy playing catch up with my studies. I never hit the books
until I turned fifteen when I discovered philosophy, when I discovered
that I could reason very logically. Almost overnight, I stayed home
and did almost nothing but reading and studying and dreaming of going
to college. When I got there, I promplty fell in love with a homely
looking girl at the end of my first year. The relationship lasted for
three years, but I have been strangely affected ever since. I'm
finally learning at the age of sixty that all human relationships
involve power. The question is who needs whom more. And to go through
life with the least pain is to keep my mouth shut and let nobody knows
how I feel. Also, don't be quick to get angry. It's a sign of
weakness. I almost forgot to add that life is of course about to
procure food and shelter. The issues like love, freedom, and dignity
complicate life and make it hard to face. It's easier to live like an
animal, just concerned with basic necessities and simple pleasures.
But what about ironies? You said a few minutes ago you were going to
talk about them. Right, I was digressing. In fact, I like digressions.
Just to see how my mind functions. Digressions and associations.
That's me. What I meant by ironies is that I realized very recently
despite having been married ten times and involving in thousands of
close relationships, I know nothing about love. Maybe I have finally
reached a stage where it does not make much sense to me anymore to
talk about love since I no longer view it as sacrosanct and beautiful,
but as a self-imposed delusion. You see, I'm tired of being
disappointed. Everybody talks a good game, but when tested, they turn
out to be selfish and self-centered. Everybody thinks they are a bit
better than they actually are. Well, almost everybody, my parents,
Mother Teresa, Father Damien, and maybe the current Dalai Lama are the
exceptions. Everybody else, including myself, are just fucking
talkers, half-baked humans. And believe it or not, I am trying to
break through this self-imposed half-baked encapsulation. That's why
at this age, I am still learning, to make up for lost time when I
moped around feeling for myself. I have learned that I have a zest for
facts and knowledge and from there, using my logical reasoning, I
tentatively arrive at certain impressions and conclusions which are
not necessarily truths but far closer than what my peers and
contemporaries think. I sometimes wonder if they know how to think at
all, whether they have an aptitude to arrive at logical conclusions
simply they are not morally brave enough and not intellectually
curious enough. Just because they have taken some courses in college
and passed them and received a diploma, they fancy they are educated
and entitled to call themselves "intellectuals", but based on the
opinions and comments they have mouthed off, I have concluded that
they are a bunch of cowardly nitwits and human parasites who have
taken from society but have given nothing back in return except self-
inflated egos and smug complacency. Anyway, as usual, I talk too much.
I have this lingering concern that one of these days, one of those
animals for whom I absolutely have nothing but contempt will do me in.
Animals have feelings, too, you know.
Last night, I revisited "Die Trying" by Lee Child. Whenever I feel out
of whack, disturbed, unbalanced, and homicidal (I have not felt
suicidal for quite some time now. Good!), I reach for a thriller,
preferably by Lee Child. I used to read books about Zen Buddhism when
I felt unanchored, but I think I understand as much about Zen as I
could from books. I now need hard-nosed realism and naked yet
evocative protrayal of evil and brutality, not philosophical
acceptance and escapism, in preparation of my eventual confrontation
of ultimate realities. The reason why I reread "Die Trying" because I
wanted to be reminded that foolish bravery achieved nothing but one's
early demise. Revenge is the dish best served cold. I have to wait for
the right time to act, to strike at those who dared to cross me. They
must be taught there is a price, a very steep price for their
insolence and abuses of power. That's why I am no longer interested
in killing myself. I want to live as long as I can so I can carry out
my mission. I am now doing Yoga, gigong, and meditation to strengthen
my body and mind so when the right time comes, I can execute my
mission flawlessly. It seems simple to do, but few can do it and
live peacefully afterwards.
(to be continued)
A woman told you to write a story about her life because she thought
her life was interesting and worthy of dissemination. You told her
that you are not a professional writer, a storyteller for hire, You
further explained to her that occasionally you set words on paper in
spite of your lack of narrating skills because you are weak-willed and
at the mercy of an inner voice which torments you and forces you to
pick up the pen. You write because you want to silence the voice,
otherwise you would go crazy and do something really stupid. Being
laughed at is better than being in jail.
You coldly told her that her life was not that interesting and you
were quite sure that nobody, besides her father confessor, wanted to
listen to it. You would rather write about your own life, instead. You
have an ego and absolutely think your life is the movie material,
maybe even suitable for a play, a tragedy of Shakespearean scope and
dimensions. If only you had the narrating skills. Vanity is thy name.
But she persisted. She didn't give up. She even sent you an outline of
what the story of her life should entail. You are in a quandary. Some
of your last forays into fiction writing involved a woman who coldly
walked away from you and a malajusted man who committed suicide,
prompting some nasty comments from an unoriginal (read: plagiarizing),
pseudo-artistic mind. He should realize all fiction writers are
embellishers at heart. They have an over-heated imagination which has
to be satisfied. They don't need to engage in lying in everyday life
because they can do that in their literary lives and it's more fun
that way. Lying is an art. Only a few can be called bullshit artists,
though many certainly have tried.
An early winter storm is gathering. Northern winds are blustering.
Temperature is plummeting. The sky is overcast. Weathermen are
forecasting sleet and snow . A man is pulling into a roadside motel
parking lot as darkness descends over town. He is not getting out of
the car. Tears are streaming down his face. The radio is on. A song
from Bread's "Baby, I am-a want you" is bringing back sentiments he
has long suppressed. Love was short, but memory is forever. It has a
life of its own.
The motel is one of those inexpensive establishments managed by people
from South Asia. It is not very clean. The reception office also
functions as the living quarters for the manager's family. It has an
unpleasant choking smell of lingering curry. He just needs a place to
take a warm leisurely bath and then crash for the night. Hopefully, by
tomorrow the weather wil improve and he could be on his way.
His room is at the far end of the north side of the motel. As soon as
he gets inside the room, he turns on the faucet in the bathtub.. As he
gets older, he prefers a bath to a shower. Warm, refreshing water
soothes his body and nerves whenever he wants immediate soothing. He
closes his eyes while images of Laura, the one who could easily stand
for the woman Bread was crooning about are flashing through his mind
and he just killed her. Killing her was far easier than he had
thought. Right now, the problem is eluding justice and punishment. He
does not really care if the law will catch up with him. He is tired
from long driving. He feels confident he will be able to sleep. He
does not feel anxious or remorseful. He just feels numb. He was
suffering. He was angry. Now he is numb to the core, yet he wonders
where the tears came from while he was sitting in the car. Is music
such powerful, such primordial, capable of bringing to the fore in an
instant long suppressed memories?
The irony was that Laura did not sweep off his feet when he first met
her. He wanted very much not to like her, but the fact he wound up
falling in love with her amounted to a painful personal failure. At
first, he thought he was just fooling her and himself, but it turned
out his feelings for her were not apocryphal at all. The problem was
she had told him that her mother didn't approve of her getting too
close to him on account that his family was not well off enough. He
should have got all upset and walked away, but he didn't because he
loved her. He was stupid. Love made a person do stupid things. Like
his loving her without a future together and then killing her in a fit
of anger after thirty eight years when he had told himself over and
over during waking hours that he no longer loved her after she
brutally left him for another man, barely two years after they both
graduated from college.
He was tired all of the sudden, on top of being numb from blocking out
all feelings, including those of remorse. He got out of the tub, dried
himself, and jumped into bed. Even though he had turned off all the
lights, there was a faint light from the parking lot sneaking in
through the curtain. He looked at the clock on the night table. It
said 8 pm. Way before his normal bedtime. But he would try to get some
sleep. Sleep would come eventually, if he just kept closing his eyes.
Tomorrow would be a long drive. Miles to go before he could be in bed
again.
You are tired yourself, just from thinking about the predicament he
found himself, all because she said, "Go away, you are a damned
fucking loser. I don't know you. And don't ever come back.." and he
pulled the trigger. You are tired of writing down the story as he
told you. You don't feel like keeping your word. You promised him you
would write his story, the story of pains and sorrows, of misplaced
affection, of betrayal and violence, of the sheer meaninglessness of
it all. But now you are writing your own story, with no particular
order. You would just let your subsconscious take over and your
fingers fly over the keyboard. Fuck the cogency and coherence. You are
not going to send it to any publisher. Nobody is going to want it. You
only have this desire to spill your guts out.
Life is a process full of ironies. The more I live, the more I see
ironies around me, and about me, too. When I was a young boy, I
starved for affection and attention because I didn't get it at home.
What I got was stern lecturings and a lot of beatings. I managed to
grow up and get some education, without spending time in jail though I
had several close calls. I did not do any dating during high school,
not because I was ugly or anything. In fact, I was a handsome devil,
but I was busy playing catch up with my studies. I never hit the books
until I turned fifteen when I discovered philosophy, when I discovered
that I could reason very logically. Almost overnight, I stayed home
and did almost nothing but reading and studying and dreaming of going
to college. When I got there, I promplty fell in love with a homely
looking girl at the end of my first year. The relationship lasted for
three years, but I have been strangely affected ever since. I'm
finally learning at the age of sixty that all human relationships
involve power. The question is who needs whom more. And to go through
life with the least pain is to keep my mouth shut and let nobody knows
how I feel. Also, don't be quick to get angry. It's a sign of
weakness. I almost forgot to add that life is of course about to
procure food and shelter. The issues like love, freedom, and dignity
complicate life and make it hard to face. It's easier to live like an
animal, just concerned with basic necessities and simple pleasures.
But what about ironies? You said a few minutes ago you were going to
talk about them. Right, I was digressing. In fact, I like digressions.
Just to see how my mind functions. Digressions and associations.
That's me. What I meant by ironies is that I realized very recently
despite having been married ten times and involving in thousands of
close relationships, I know nothing about love. Maybe I have finally
reached a stage where it does not make much sense to me anymore to
talk about love since I no longer view it as sacrosanct and beautiful,
but as a self-imposed delusion. You see, I'm tired of being
disappointed. Everybody talks a good game, but when tested, they turn
out to be selfish and self-centered. Everybody thinks they are a bit
better than they actually are. Well, almost everybody, my parents,
Mother Teresa, Father Damien, and maybe the current Dalai Lama are the
exceptions. Everybody else, including myself, are just fucking
talkers, half-baked humans. And believe it or not, I am trying to
break through this self-imposed half-baked encapsulation. That's why
at this age, I am still learning, to make up for lost time when I
moped around feeling for myself. I have learned that I have a zest for
facts and knowledge and from there, using my logical reasoning, I
tentatively arrive at certain impressions and conclusions which are
not necessarily truths but far closer than what my peers and
contemporaries think. I sometimes wonder if they know how to think at
all, whether they have an aptitude to arrive at logical conclusions
simply they are not morally brave enough and not intellectually
curious enough. Just because they have taken some courses in college
and passed them and received a diploma, they fancy they are educated
and entitled to call themselves "intellectuals", but based on the
opinions and comments they have mouthed off, I have concluded that
they are a bunch of cowardly nitwits and human parasites who have
taken from society but have given nothing back in return except self-
inflated egos and smug complacency. Anyway, as usual, I talk too much.
I have this lingering concern that one of these days, one of those
animals for whom I absolutely have nothing but contempt will do me in.
Animals have feelings, too, you know.
Last night, I revisited "Die Trying" by Lee Child. Whenever I feel out
of whack, disturbed, unbalanced, and homicidal (I have not felt
suicidal for quite some time now. Good!), I reach for a thriller,
preferably by Lee Child. I used to read books about Zen Buddhism when
I felt unanchored, but I think I understand as much about Zen as I
could from books. I now need hard-nosed realism and naked yet
evocative protrayal of evil and brutality, not philosophical
acceptance and escapism, in preparation of my eventual confrontation
of ultimate realities. The reason why I reread "Die Trying" because I
wanted to be reminded that foolish bravery achieved nothing but one's
early demise. Revenge is the dish best served cold. I have to wait for
the right time to act, to strike at those who dared to cross me. They
must be taught there is a price, a very steep price for their
insolence and abuses of power. That's why I am no longer interested
in killing myself. I want to live as long as I can so I can carry out
my mission. I am now doing Yoga, gigong, and meditation to strengthen
my body and mind so when the right time comes, I can execute my
mission flawlessly. It seems simple to do, but few can do it and
live peacefully afterwards.
(to be continued)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thinking
Bac Thanh:
I am going to answer all your points raised in your email in the order they were written.
The Prologue
You seem to know what a Democrat thinks while you are not a Democrat yourself. In addition, not everybody who calls themselves Democrats think the same way on every single issue. I don't think Democrats are accustomed of wrongly accusing others while pursuing fair and equitable justice. As bac Hien pointed out, gross generalizations must not be practiced by fair-minded and clear thinking people.
Point 1. So, you were using the "generic you" in communicating directly to me. Fair enough. I take you at your word. For your info, I do regard myself as a Democrat. The platform of the American Democratic Party suits my social and political views.
Point 2. I thought I had made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that I did think John Doe was guilty of adultery. I also made it crystally clear that the act of adultery did not interest me as much as it did to you. I was, and I perenially am, more interested in the why than the what because the why gives me answers and understanding while the preoccupation with the what gives me nothing but self-righteous condemnation as in the example involving John Doe.
Point 3. I have never been in denial my entire life. I am one of those who are never into denial or self-deception. I have moral and intellectual courage, and you had better believe it. I never denied that adultery did not occur. I challenge you to go back to the emails of the last couple days about your mundane example of adultery and show me where I denied that adultery did not take place. Once again, and as I pointed out in the preceding email of mine, you have a very bad habit of attributing words that I have never written to me. Please refrain from doing that as that does not make you look "good".
Point 4. As I pointed out to bac Hien, for a person of his intellect and intelligence, he made an error in judgment in thinking that I was accusing or blaming the victim who was John Doe's wife. Apparently he agreed with my explanation. That was why we have not seen a riposte, retort, or repartee from him. I took his silence was his agreement, not his shyness. We all know bac Hien is not shy from the way he has expressed himself in this forum.
In closing, may I say that you can call yourself a clear-minded engineer as much as and as long as you want, but I don't share your lofty view of yourself at all, not in this mundane example of adultery and in many others where I have crossed swords pens) with you.
Wissai
On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:51 PM, "victorthanh" wrote:
Bac Hien & Bac Wissai:
Bac Hien has pointed out the real problem with people who are so compassionate that they couldn't make up their mind on issues. They think of every thing and every angle to save what they want to save, including wrongly accusing others. That is the thinking of a Democrat.
Now, back to the question at hand:
1. Bac Wissai. When I said "you" I meant the one represented by image in the trend of thought at the time, and not you (bac Wissai). So, please do not feel that I am attacking you while I only wanted to make a point. I am not Bush and you are not Clinton. You are not a democrat Democrate and I am not a republican Republican, although we may, AT TIMES, think like them.
2. You still have not given me the answer to my question: Did John Doe commit adultery? Would the question is easier to answer if rephrased to: "Did the former lover of John Doe, who was living with her husband, commit adultery?"
3. You keep talking about circumstances and factors that led to the crime but never acknowledge if there was a crime. Why? People do so because they are in the state of denial and are very uncomfortable with the fact that the crime occured. Clinton continued to argue about the definition of "sex" and said that he never had sex with Lewinsky, according to certain definition. Or he would say: "How can I corner a young and desirable female in the OVAL Office when the office has no CORNER?" This is what you call "beating around the bush (not Bush)."
4. I don't know if bac Hien is a Republican, but what he said to you about accusing the victim is wrong is what I call republican thinking. Now, you came up with a series of justifications to defend your accusation but the accusation still remains unchanged.
Thanh (a clear mind engineer, hi`. . . hi`. . . )
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai wrote:
Bac Hien:
I was surprised at your remark. For a person with a formidable intellect and intelligence, you seemed to miss the point I was driving at. I was not into the game of blaming the victim at all. I was reinforcing my contention that bac Thanh seems to be preoccupied with the what while I find the why more interesting and educational. Any fool can see the what. The why is what brings understanding. With understanding, we arrive at a fairer assessment/judgment process. In other words, I caution against kneejerk thinking.
For more info about thinking, refer to my post with the heading "Thinking".
Back to your one long sentence comment, only one word is correct. That word is "revelry".
Wissai
On Dec 13, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Hien Le wrote:
Hate to interrupt the revelry here, but Bac Wissai, blaming or finding fault with the victim, the wife whose husband is unfaithful in this case, is wrong.
hl
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Wissai wrote:
Bac Thanh:
I envy you for having a crystal clear world view of "things" and for not being troubled by a notion that "things are not what they appear to be". You and your fellow Republican George Bush, The Junior, have something in common. It's called simplism. I believe you when you said you didn't lose sleep nor did you ever get depressed as your world is so cut and dried.
Back to your John Doe, the adulterer (I hope he is not an adulterer stutterer as he would have a hard time to defend himself against a "prosecutor" like you). Perhaps you do not know that he sought affection with another woman because of one or more of the following reasons:
1. His wife is frigid.
2. His wife feels she is a man caught in a woman's body.
3. His wife is a raving lunatic.
4. His wife's hygiene is deplorable.
5. His wife makes fun of the size of his sex organ.
6. His wife is a lesbian.
7. His wife turns out to be a Republican like you who sees the world in two colors: black and white, while he is a painter artist at heart who sees the world in its luxuriance of mutiple colors.
In your view, since he slept with somebody else other than his wife, you jumped to a ready made conclusion that he is a " womanizing and unfaithful SOB" (your words). You forgot to look, to dig a little deeper for underlying, perhaps even extenuating, circumstances.
I am so glad you are an enginner, not a judge.
Respecfully yours,
A subtle thinker
On Dec 12, 2009, at 8:56 PM, "victorthanh" wrote:
Bac Wissai:
Excellent! While the why is important to come up with a socially and morally acceptable sentence for a crime. The verdict has to be established first. The verdict is not something superficial. Again this is the basic difference between a Democrat and a Republican. John Doe has to be found guilty of adultery first. To sentence him, the law will look into the circumstance of his adultery to render appropriate punishment subsequently. A Democrat would try to dig deep and come up with an all encompassing and compassionate solution, which may take a long time to get or the solution may never arrive because of the complexity of the problem. In contrast, a Republican would quickly see if the guilt exist which will warrant further digging for sentencing. The approach is in opposite directions.
As Democrat, you are still trying to figure out what to do with VN and have not taken any action about it except for giving it some serious thoughts. Look into other things as well. As a Republican, I already got my first answer, second answer and now working on the third answer. You and I may get to the same point as the final answer at the same time. The difference is I don't lose sleep and get depressed in my search as I already got the verdict done (John Doe is guilty of adultery) and am now concerned with the sentencing only. In contrast, you have not decided as whether John Doe is guilty!
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai wrote:
Bac Thanh:
All right. All right. I heartily concur with you that in every discourse, the ability to understand what the other conveys his thoughts is the key, not the self-inflated idea that our thoughts are the only ones that are deep and the thoughts of the other are the products of shallow thinking. To understand the other point of view does not necessarily lead to its acceptance and approval. There is a thing called value/merit as opposed to mundaneness/ banality.
Back to your mundane example, even a kid who was not born as an idiot would easily see that adultery is an activity to be frowned upon. To delve into the question of why, and not to stay with the what, is the province of adults, at least of those who are concerned with the explicatory process. In other words, to grapple with the why is to attain some measure of understanding. To stay with the what in the mundane example of adultery is to be contented with mere condemnation without being bothered with the issue of understanding. May I remind you that the law knows the primacy of the why over the what. That's why, for instance, the law does not stop at the superficiality of the act of killing, but goes into the motives---the why---of the killing in weighing various degrees of punishment.
Wissai
Bac Wissai:
Ok, Ok. . . I know that it is extremely difficult to convince a thinker that his thinking is not deep enough or a photographer that his lighting on the photograph is insufficient, a policeman to stop his brutality, a dictator to respect human rights, etc. because what asked of them is for them to go against what they represent. However, when right or wrong is not the answer in a discussion such as the ones we often have in this forum, accepting a point of view can be made easily if we can only see things as they are presented and not as they are a lesson taught to students by a teacher,
I resorted to mundane example because it would leave little or no room for misunderstanding but I seem to be wrong on that.
So, is my "what" wrong? and unreal? The way to discuss is to say that: "OK, your "what" is right but . . . I would like to add the "Why" to it . . ." Instead, your throw my "what" away and replaced it with your "why," something totally unrelated. Is John Doe an unfaithful person?
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai wrote:
Bac Thanh:
Your oblique yet rather mundane example involving John Doe seems to reflect your obsessive concern with superficiality, and not with underlying reality and its aspects. Other individuals with whom you appear to have philosophical differences, are more concerned with the "why" while you are only fascinated with the easier the "what", the surface.
Wissai, ha ha
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:35 AM, "victorthanh" wrote:
Bac Hien & Bac Wissai:
I agree with all the points made by bac Hien, especially on the historical perspectives of the totalitarian systems. People cannot topple the dictators because they are weak and yellow as compared to the rulers, as suggested. (It is noted that I call the spade spade and not flowery phrases in place of "weak" and "yellow"). It is a relative question. Historically, some took a long time, others only the 6 years of the WW-II. Also it depends of the educational level of the people. Two millennia ago, it took hundreds of years to kill the crazy, nowadays only a few years. Some case is executed even without a single death such the Polish revolution.
In the course of this discussion I discovered one fascinating feature of our methods. When I make a point such as:
John Doe is a womanizing and unfaithful SOB who has a wife and kids and still sleeps around with other woman(en). Other MC would join in by saying something like: "No, no, he is a gentleman. He only slept with one woman and it was an accident that he bummed into a former lover during a snow storm", etc... Some even expand it by saying that they both regretted the incident or "It is not as simple as that...things are not what they seem...John didn't want to do it but did it because..."
So, I repeat: "John Doe is a womanizing and unfaithful SOB." Another wave of arguments would emerge to defend the previous arguments. No one bothers to note that John Doe is now divorced for cause of adultery.
Thanh, hi`. . .hi`. . .
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Hien Le wrote:
1. yes.
2. Stand corrected. Thanks.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Wissai wrote:
Still impressively articulate. Two comments:
1. Didn't you mean Philosophy 101, not English 101?
2. I don't think we ever practiced genocide on the Cham. The two peoples
were locked in a struggle for survival. We won. They lost. I have not heard
of wanton, deliberate killings of the Cham in order to wipe them out after
we emerged victorious after battles. Their deaths came during the battles.
They attacked us when they were strong. Che Bong Nga burned down Thang
Long.
The Cham are still around. They have not disappeared. Some have sought
refuge in Kampuchea. Others elected to stay in Vietnam. There has not been a
policy that I know of to exterminate the remaining Cham in Vietnam. In fact,
during the Vietnam War, they were exempt from the draft under various
administrations in South Vietnam where the majority, if not all, of the
remnant Cham lived, apart from those who had emigrated to Kampuchea.
Wissai
On Dec 11, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Hien Le wrote:
The issue you raise is that of the persistence of totalitarian system in
particular, and of evil in general, in the world of humans. In totalitarian
systems the vast majority of the common people hate the totalitarians but
can't act out their hatred because totalitarians have mastered the art of
repression. They simply repress very well. At the mere hint of discontent,
they rain immense pain and suffering on the dissenter, and the innocent
members of his or her family. In our world evil persists because some human
have evil in their heart and are resourceful and or lucky enough to be able
act their evil will out, while the vast majority of the people wrongly
tolerate evil because they wrongly believe that it doesn't effect them and
did not realize their error until it is too late.
People who live under totalitarians regime do wish horrible death on the
totalitarians, it is just they can't do it because the machinery of
totalitarian repression is highly efficient in ferreting out and eliminating
all nascent dissent. In the few historical cases when the machinery of
repression got jammed or broken down, even temporarily, totalitarians do die
horribly. Witness the death by multiple gunshot and dismemberment of the
Ceausescu of Romania in 1989, or the hanging and castration of Mussolini in
1945.
Of course not all people wish all the bad guys to die horribly. Sweeping
generalization are usually wrong, as they still teach you and rightly so in
English 101. As I see it, those who don't wish the bad guys to die horribly,
however, are more misguided than anything else. For it is a bleak world when
justice does not prevail and retribution for bad deed doesn't obtain.
The genocide of the Cham people is a dark blot on Vietnamese history, but
it is a story of national territorial expansion and conquest, and not one of
totalitarians repression similar to the imposition of communism on the a
country by its own and self-proclaimed "revolutionary elite". Your use of
this one historical fact is out of place here.
As a concluding note, for a write up on how totalitarians such as top VCP
leaders die, see here.
http://nhabaovietthuong.blogspot. com/2009/ 06/cai-chet- cua-cac-tuong- viet-gian- cong.html
When and where the justice of men fails, there is always karma, terrible,
merciless, implacable, and oh so fair.
Hien Le
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, victorthanh
yahoo.com> wrote:
Bac Hien:
Now that is the first. While I see your point, I find it difficult to
imagine that the 83 million Vietnamese, who wish the 3 million other
Vietnamese living next door to them, dead but cannot do anything about it.
They erased the Cham in only a few years. The fact of the matter is that the
3 million still alive with their evil deeds because the other 83 million do
not want to kill them . . .yet. Please don't tell me that the 83 million are
so yellow that they cannot carry out their (rightful) wishes. If they are
suffering and the 3 million will not improve, why do they let the 3 million
continue their evil deeds?
This includes all oversea anti-communist Viet Kieu. They do not want to
kill the communists either. In fact many of them now actually want to join
them.
You can claim that they, the communist, deserve to die all you want but if
the 83 million victims do not event want to give the 3 million communists a
hard time, I don't see how your claim can be verified.
You can also claim that the 83 million victims want to kill them but
cannot do it because they are weak and yellow all you want; I still find it
hard to drum up any justification for your claim. Maybe they do not want to
kill them bad enough (that is not to kill... yet, right?). Maybe they are
waiting for the right time (that is also not to kill yet). Maybe they have
no leader (that is not to kill yet, no difference). Maybe, they want the
communists to die but by someone else and not by them (that is not to kill
yet, again).
The bottom line that, I know, is difficult for many (you included) to see,
is that the communists still exist because the people who have any thing to
do with their existence allow them to exist.
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai
wrote:
Very eloquently expressed. A pleasure to read.
On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Hien Le wrote:
Bac VT,
You must be living in some alternate reality to pen such prose!
I strongly disagree with your statement "This is why communism continues
to exist because the majority of the people governed by the group still hope
that one day the governing group will improve and be better."
Communism continues to exists because has the monopoly on force,
especially deadly coercive force, and because has never been shy to exercise
such force to impose its will. Since the advent of communism, more than 200
million innocent people have been murdered so that these communists could
carry out their "improvement" experiments.
I am sure you have hear the following saying about life under communism: "if the lampost could walk, it would flee."
communism prays and hope the "governing group" will one beautiful day
"improve their process" and be better. As a minimum, they wish all of them
dead and preferably by a thousand cuts to pay for their crimes against
humanity.
Hien Le
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:28 PM, victorthanh wrote:
Cac Bac:
Communism is, in theory, "equally sharing" for all; but in practice it
puts the decision for sharing in the hands of a group of people who
generally have limited knowledge in the basic principles of government and
social fairness. Because of their limitation, it is necessary for the people
in this group to bind together through camaraderie and shared national
ideals solely for the purpose of self-preservation and advancement in
private gains. This is why some members later break away when they happen to
find no private gain (remember, they already got together with common
ideals, it is the subsequent gains that set them apart), AND some
non-members, including the former enemies and the defeated, want to join in
and hope for private gains.
The system, that in this case is the communism, is good or bad depending
on how severe the limitation of this governing group is. This is why
communism continues to exist because the majority of the people governed by
the group still hope that one day the governing group will improve and be
better. The members of the governing group also realize this dilemma and
therefore continue to make promises of improvements or try to show signs of
improvements, even when no real improvement is occuring . It is like to hope
that one day men will become saints and enlightened.
Thus as long as communism exists, cronies exist to preserve and to
attract new members. One thing for certain however, bleeding of the mass to
concentrate blood into a small pool of cronies will eventually turns victims
into stones and when blood can no longer flow from stones, the entire system
collapses and the doomed day occurs for all.
Thanh
On Dec 13, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Wissai wrote:
Dear bac Thanh and fellow MCs:
The more I think about bac Thanh's outlandish claims and grandiose statements, the more I am convinced that I have to abandon my politeness and oblique references, and address his claims and statements point by point.
1. He claimed that I have not done anything about the situation in Vietnam, besides giving it serious thoughts. I wonder where he has been for the last five months. Based on his posts in the MC forum, I know he followed the posts done by his fellow MCs, including those of mine. I have actively participated in writing declarations, drummed up, pleaded, hectored people like him to join the cause. I have written to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Senator Jim Webb, U.N. Secretary General, Indian Embassador to the the U.S., and the New York Times. I have also written articles posted here and in my blog denouncing in clear and strong terms both the VC and the TC. I even publicly denounced those who seem to profess a love for the TC at the expense of Vietnam. I wonder what exactly bac Thanh has done for Vietnam. He even dared not sign his name to the essay about "Fear", when approached by me. Instead, he resorted to silence. Yesterday, when I made reference to "spineless and loud-mouthed individuals", in my post in reaction to bac Tiep's post about "Vo Thuong" (impermanence), I had in mind bac Thanh as one of the individuals. Words are cheap. Words not accompanied by actions make a person cheaper. Character is everything. It supersedes education and wealth.
2. During the 13 months of my being a member of this forum, I have noticed that bac Thanh has an unsavory propensity to be very loose with facts. And I have confronted him every single time in the interest of truth. He also tends to put words in somebody's mouth. In this latest discussion about his lame and mundane example involving John Doe, he penned that I had not even determined Doe was guilty of adultery. I never said he was not. I pointed out to bac Thanh that any child who was not born as an idiot would easily see that Doe had engaged in an activity that should be frowned upon, not condoned. I contended that as adults, we should do things that are in the province of adults and that is to be concerned with the why, and not to be preoccupied with the what.
In closing, I request that bac Thanh respect facts, at least when he has a dialogue with me.
Wissai
Thinking
The following are thoughts that have percolated over the years in my
mind and now seem to be a bit clearer as a result of my having a
dialogue with bac Thanh over various subjects. I welcome all inputs.
Thinking is done MOSTLY with words. Words are concepts and
representations of the physical and metaphysical "realities". Thus,
it's safe to say that the more words a person has at his disposal, the
clearer his thought process is. Of course, some other factors can be in
play: imagination, ability to analyze and synthesize, etc...(etc means
there are others that exist but I know nothing of)
Thinking requires courage to reach to its logical conclusions which
may result in forcing us to abandon long cherished beliefs. In other
words, thinking requires intellectual honesty which is an anathema of
sophistry. Sophistry is an affliction of many individuals with verbal
dexterity and honesty paucity.
The ultimate goal of thinking is to arrive at knowledge and truth, not
to prove that one is smart. The way a person thinks, especially how he
presents his ideas tells us who he is, especially his character,
whether he resorts to cliches and trite expressions or he is trying
hard to inch towards hidden realities, even fresh insights.
In thinking about thinking, one is at the roots of language and
reasoning and character.
Wissai
Dec. 13, 2008
I am going to answer all your points raised in your email in the order they were written.
The Prologue
You seem to know what a Democrat thinks while you are not a Democrat yourself. In addition, not everybody who calls themselves Democrats think the same way on every single issue. I don't think Democrats are accustomed of wrongly accusing others while pursuing fair and equitable justice. As bac Hien pointed out, gross generalizations must not be practiced by fair-minded and clear thinking people.
Point 1. So, you were using the "generic you" in communicating directly to me. Fair enough. I take you at your word. For your info, I do regard myself as a Democrat. The platform of the American Democratic Party suits my social and political views.
Point 2. I thought I had made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that I did think John Doe was guilty of adultery. I also made it crystally clear that the act of adultery did not interest me as much as it did to you. I was, and I perenially am, more interested in the why than the what because the why gives me answers and understanding while the preoccupation with the what gives me nothing but self-righteous condemnation as in the example involving John Doe.
Point 3. I have never been in denial my entire life. I am one of those who are never into denial or self-deception. I have moral and intellectual courage, and you had better believe it. I never denied that adultery did not occur. I challenge you to go back to the emails of the last couple days about your mundane example of adultery and show me where I denied that adultery did not take place. Once again, and as I pointed out in the preceding email of mine, you have a very bad habit of attributing words that I have never written to me. Please refrain from doing that as that does not make you look "good".
Point 4. As I pointed out to bac Hien, for a person of his intellect and intelligence, he made an error in judgment in thinking that I was accusing or blaming the victim who was John Doe's wife. Apparently he agreed with my explanation. That was why we have not seen a riposte, retort, or repartee from him. I took his silence was his agreement, not his shyness. We all know bac Hien is not shy from the way he has expressed himself in this forum.
In closing, may I say that you can call yourself a clear-minded engineer as much as and as long as you want, but I don't share your lofty view of yourself at all, not in this mundane example of adultery and in many others where I have crossed swords pens) with you.
Wissai
On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:51 PM, "victorthanh"
Bac Hien & Bac Wissai:
Bac Hien has pointed out the real problem with people who are so compassionate that they couldn't make up their mind on issues. They think of every thing and every angle to save what they want to save, including wrongly accusing others. That is the thinking of a Democrat.
Now, back to the question at hand:
1. Bac Wissai. When I said "you" I meant the one represented by image in the trend of thought at the time, and not you (bac Wissai). So, please do not feel that I am attacking you while I only wanted to make a point. I am not Bush and you are not Clinton. You are not a democrat Democrate and I am not a republican Republican, although we may, AT TIMES, think like them.
2. You still have not given me the answer to my question: Did John Doe commit adultery? Would the question is easier to answer if rephrased to: "Did the former lover of John Doe, who was living with her husband, commit adultery?"
3. You keep talking about circumstances and factors that led to the crime but never acknowledge if there was a crime. Why? People do so because they are in the state of denial and are very uncomfortable with the fact that the crime occured. Clinton continued to argue about the definition of "sex" and said that he never had sex with Lewinsky, according to certain definition. Or he would say: "How can I corner a young and desirable female in the OVAL Office when the office has no CORNER?" This is what you call "beating around the bush (not Bush)."
4. I don't know if bac Hien is a Republican, but what he said to you about accusing the victim is wrong is what I call republican thinking. Now, you came up with a series of justifications to defend your accusation but the accusation still remains unchanged.
Thanh (a clear mind engineer, hi`. . . hi`. . . )
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai
Bac Hien:
I was surprised at your remark. For a person with a formidable intellect and intelligence, you seemed to miss the point I was driving at. I was not into the game of blaming the victim at all. I was reinforcing my contention that bac Thanh seems to be preoccupied with the what while I find the why more interesting and educational. Any fool can see the what. The why is what brings understanding. With understanding, we arrive at a fairer assessment/judgment process. In other words, I caution against kneejerk thinking.
For more info about thinking, refer to my post with the heading "Thinking".
Back to your one long sentence comment, only one word is correct. That word is "revelry".
Wissai
On Dec 13, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Hien Le
Hate to interrupt the revelry here, but Bac Wissai, blaming or finding fault with the victim, the wife whose husband is unfaithful in this case, is wrong.
hl
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Wissai
Bac Thanh:
I envy you for having a crystal clear world view of "things" and for not being troubled by a notion that "things are not what they appear to be". You and your fellow Republican George Bush, The Junior, have something in common. It's called simplism. I believe you when you said you didn't lose sleep nor did you ever get depressed as your world is so cut and dried.
Back to your John Doe, the adulterer (I hope he is not an adulterer stutterer as he would have a hard time to defend himself against a "prosecutor" like you). Perhaps you do not know that he sought affection with another woman because of one or more of the following reasons:
1. His wife is frigid.
2. His wife feels she is a man caught in a woman's body.
3. His wife is a raving lunatic.
4. His wife's hygiene is deplorable.
5. His wife makes fun of the size of his sex organ.
6. His wife is a lesbian.
7. His wife turns out to be a Republican like you who sees the world in two colors: black and white, while he is a painter artist at heart who sees the world in its luxuriance of mutiple colors.
In your view, since he slept with somebody else other than his wife, you jumped to a ready made conclusion that he is a " womanizing and unfaithful SOB" (your words). You forgot to look, to dig a little deeper for underlying, perhaps even extenuating, circumstances.
I am so glad you are an enginner, not a judge.
Respecfully yours,
A subtle thinker
On Dec 12, 2009, at 8:56 PM, "victorthanh"
Bac Wissai:
Excellent! While the why is important to come up with a socially and morally acceptable sentence for a crime. The verdict has to be established first. The verdict is not something superficial. Again this is the basic difference between a Democrat and a Republican. John Doe has to be found guilty of adultery first. To sentence him, the law will look into the circumstance of his adultery to render appropriate punishment subsequently. A Democrat would try to dig deep and come up with an all encompassing and compassionate solution, which may take a long time to get or the solution may never arrive because of the complexity of the problem. In contrast, a Republican would quickly see if the guilt exist which will warrant further digging for sentencing. The approach is in opposite directions.
As Democrat, you are still trying to figure out what to do with VN and have not taken any action about it except for giving it some serious thoughts. Look into other things as well. As a Republican, I already got my first answer, second answer and now working on the third answer. You and I may get to the same point as the final answer at the same time. The difference is I don't lose sleep and get depressed in my search as I already got the verdict done (John Doe is guilty of adultery) and am now concerned with the sentencing only. In contrast, you have not decided as whether John Doe is guilty!
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai
Bac Thanh:
All right. All right. I heartily concur with you that in every discourse, the ability to understand what the other conveys his thoughts is the key, not the self-inflated idea that our thoughts are the only ones that are deep and the thoughts of the other are the products of shallow thinking. To understand the other point of view does not necessarily lead to its acceptance and approval. There is a thing called value/merit as opposed to mundaneness/ banality.
Back to your mundane example, even a kid who was not born as an idiot would easily see that adultery is an activity to be frowned upon. To delve into the question of why, and not to stay with the what, is the province of adults, at least of those who are concerned with the explicatory process. In other words, to grapple with the why is to attain some measure of understanding. To stay with the what in the mundane example of adultery is to be contented with mere condemnation without being bothered with the issue of understanding. May I remind you that the law knows the primacy of the why over the what. That's why, for instance, the law does not stop at the superficiality of the act of killing, but goes into the motives---the why---of the killing in weighing various degrees of punishment.
Wissai
Bac Wissai:
Ok, Ok. . . I know that it is extremely difficult to convince a thinker that his thinking is not deep enough or a photographer that his lighting on the photograph is insufficient, a policeman to stop his brutality, a dictator to respect human rights, etc. because what asked of them is for them to go against what they represent. However, when right or wrong is not the answer in a discussion such as the ones we often have in this forum, accepting a point of view can be made easily if we can only see things as they are presented and not as they are a lesson taught to students by a teacher,
I resorted to mundane example because it would leave little or no room for misunderstanding but I seem to be wrong on that.
So, is my "what" wrong? and unreal? The way to discuss is to say that: "OK, your "what" is right but . . . I would like to add the "Why" to it . . ." Instead, your throw my "what" away and replaced it with your "why," something totally unrelated. Is John Doe an unfaithful person?
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Wissai
Bac Thanh:
Your oblique yet rather mundane example involving John Doe seems to reflect your obsessive concern with superficiality, and not with underlying reality and its aspects. Other individuals with whom you appear to have philosophical differences, are more concerned with the "why" while you are only fascinated with the easier the "what", the surface.
Wissai, ha ha
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:35 AM, "victorthanh"
Bac Hien & Bac Wissai:
I agree with all the points made by bac Hien, especially on the historical perspectives of the totalitarian systems. People cannot topple the dictators because they are weak and yellow as compared to the rulers, as suggested. (It is noted that I call the spade spade and not flowery phrases in place of "weak" and "yellow"). It is a relative question. Historically, some took a long time, others only the 6 years of the WW-II. Also it depends of the educational level of the people. Two millennia ago, it took hundreds of years to kill the crazy, nowadays only a few years. Some case is executed even without a single death such the Polish revolution.
In the course of this discussion I discovered one fascinating feature of our methods. When I make a point such as:
John Doe is a womanizing and unfaithful SOB who has a wife and kids and still sleeps around with other woman(en). Other MC would join in by saying something like: "No, no, he is a gentleman. He only slept with one woman and it was an accident that he bummed into a former lover during a snow storm", etc... Some even expand it by saying that they both regretted the incident or "It is not as simple as that...things are not what they seem...John didn't want to do it but did it because..."
So, I repeat: "John Doe is a womanizing and unfaithful SOB." Another wave of arguments would emerge to defend the previous arguments. No one bothers to note that John Doe is now divorced for cause of adultery.
Thanh, hi`. . .hi`. . .
--- In mitchong@yahoogroups.com, Hien Le
1. yes.
2. Stand corrected. Thanks.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Wissai
Still impressively articulate. Two comments:
1. Didn't you mean Philosophy 101, not English 101?
2. I don't think we ever practiced genocide on the Cham. The two peoples
were locked in a struggle for survival. We won. They lost. I have not heard
of wanton, deliberate killings of the Cham in order to wipe them out after
we emerged victorious after battles. Their deaths came during the battles.
They attacked us when they were strong. Che Bong Nga burned down Thang
Long.
The Cham are still around. They have not disappeared. Some have sought
refuge in Kampuchea. Others elected to stay in Vietnam. There has not been a
policy that I know of to exterminate the remaining Cham in Vietnam. In fact,
during the Vietnam War, they were exempt from the draft under various
administrations in South Vietnam where the majority, if not all, of the
remnant Cham lived, apart from those who had emigrated to Kampuchea.
Wissai
On Dec 11, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Hien Le
The issue you raise is that of the persistence of totalitarian system in
particular, and of evil in general, in the world of humans. In totalitarian
systems the vast majority of the common people hate the totalitarians but
can't act out their hatred because totalitarians have mastered the art of
repression. They simply repress very well. At the mere hint of discontent,
they rain immense pain and suffering on the dissenter, and the innocent
members of his or her family. In our world evil persists because some human
have evil in their heart and are resourceful and or lucky enough to be able
act their evil will out, while the vast majority of the people wrongly
tolerate evil because they wrongly believe that it doesn't effect them and
did not realize their error until it is too late.
People who live under totalitarians regime do wish horrible death on the
totalitarians, it is just they can't do it because the machinery of
totalitarian repression is highly efficient in ferreting out and eliminating
all nascent dissent. In the few historical cases when the machinery of
repression got jammed or broken down, even temporarily, totalitarians do die
horribly. Witness the death by multiple gunshot and dismemberment of the
Ceausescu of Romania in 1989, or the hanging and castration of Mussolini in
1945.
Of course not all people wish all the bad guys to die horribly. Sweeping
generalization are usually wrong, as they still teach you and rightly so in
English 101. As I see it, those who don't wish the bad guys to die horribly,
however, are more misguided than anything else. For it is a bleak world when
justice does not prevail and retribution for bad deed doesn't obtain.
The genocide of the Cham people is a dark blot on Vietnamese history, but
it is a story of national territorial expansion and conquest, and not one of
totalitarians repression similar to the imposition of communism on the a
country by its own and self-proclaimed "revolutionary elite". Your use of
this one historical fact is out of place here.
As a concluding note, for a write up on how totalitarians such as top VCP
leaders die, see here.
http://nhabaovietthuong.blogspot. com/2009/ 06/cai-chet- cua-cac-tuong- viet-gian- cong.html
When and where the justice of men fails, there is always karma, terrible,
merciless, implacable, and oh so fair.
Hien Le
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, victorthanh
yahoo.com> wrote:
Bac Hien:
Now that is the first. While I see your point, I find it difficult to
imagine that the 83 million Vietnamese, who wish the 3 million other
Vietnamese living next door to them, dead but cannot do anything about it.
They erased the Cham in only a few years. The fact of the matter is that the
3 million still alive with their evil deeds because the other 83 million do
not want to kill them . . .yet. Please don't tell me that the 83 million are
so yellow that they cannot carry out their (rightful) wishes. If they are
suffering and the 3 million will not improve, why do they let the 3 million
continue their evil deeds?
This includes all oversea anti-communist Viet Kieu. They do not want to
kill the communists either. In fact many of them now actually want to join
them.
You can claim that they, the communist, deserve to die all you want but if
the 83 million victims do not event want to give the 3 million communists a
hard time, I don't see how your claim can be verified.
You can also claim that the 83 million victims want to kill them but
cannot do it because they are weak and yellow all you want; I still find it
hard to drum up any justification for your claim. Maybe they do not want to
kill them bad enough (that is not to kill... yet, right?). Maybe they are
waiting for the right time (that is also not to kill yet). Maybe they have
no leader (that is not to kill yet, no difference). Maybe, they want the
communists to die but by someone else and not by them (that is not to kill
yet, again).
The bottom line that, I know, is difficult for many (you included) to see,
is that the communists still exist because the people who have any thing to
do with their existence allow them to exist.
Thanh
--- In mitchong@yahoogroup
Very eloquently expressed. A pleasure to read.
On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Hien Le
Bac VT,
You must be living in some alternate reality to pen such prose!
I strongly disagree with your statement "This is why communism continues
to exist because the majority of the people governed by the group still hope
that one day the governing group will improve and be better."
Communism continues to exists because has the monopoly on force,
especially deadly coercive force, and because has never been shy to exercise
such force to impose its will. Since the advent of communism, more than 200
million innocent people have been murdered so that these communists could
carry out their "improvement" experiments.
I am sure you have hear the following saying about life under communism: "if the lampost could walk, it would flee."
communism prays and hope the "governing group" will one beautiful day
"improve their process" and be better. As a minimum, they wish all of them
dead and preferably by a thousand cuts to pay for their crimes against
humanity.
Hien Le
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:28 PM, victorthanh
Cac Bac:
Communism is, in theory, "equally sharing" for all; but in practice it
puts the decision for sharing in the hands of a group of people who
generally have limited knowledge in the basic principles of government and
social fairness. Because of their limitation, it is necessary for the people
in this group to bind together through camaraderie and shared national
ideals solely for the purpose of self-preservation and advancement in
private gains. This is why some members later break away when they happen to
find no private gain (remember, they already got together with common
ideals, it is the subsequent gains that set them apart), AND some
non-members, including the former enemies and the defeated, want to join in
and hope for private gains.
The system, that in this case is the communism, is good or bad depending
on how severe the limitation of this governing group is. This is why
communism continues to exist because the majority of the people governed by
the group still hope that one day the governing group will improve and be
better. The members of the governing group also realize this dilemma and
therefore continue to make promises of improvements or try to show signs of
improvements, even when no real improvement is occuring . It is like to hope
that one day men will become saints and enlightened.
Thus as long as communism exists, cronies exist to preserve and to
attract new members. One thing for certain however, bleeding of the mass to
concentrate blood into a small pool of cronies will eventually turns victims
into stones and when blood can no longer flow from stones, the entire system
collapses and the doomed day occurs for all.
Thanh
On Dec 13, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Wissai
Dear bac Thanh and fellow MCs:
The more I think about bac Thanh's outlandish claims and grandiose statements, the more I am convinced that I have to abandon my politeness and oblique references, and address his claims and statements point by point.
1. He claimed that I have not done anything about the situation in Vietnam, besides giving it serious thoughts. I wonder where he has been for the last five months. Based on his posts in the MC forum, I know he followed the posts done by his fellow MCs, including those of mine. I have actively participated in writing declarations, drummed up, pleaded, hectored people like him to join the cause. I have written to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Senator Jim Webb, U.N. Secretary General, Indian Embassador to the the U.S., and the New York Times. I have also written articles posted here and in my blog denouncing in clear and strong terms both the VC and the TC. I even publicly denounced those who seem to profess a love for the TC at the expense of Vietnam. I wonder what exactly bac Thanh has done for Vietnam. He even dared not sign his name to the essay about "Fear", when approached by me. Instead, he resorted to silence. Yesterday, when I made reference to "spineless and loud-mouthed individuals", in my post in reaction to bac Tiep's post about "Vo Thuong" (impermanence), I had in mind bac Thanh as one of the individuals. Words are cheap. Words not accompanied by actions make a person cheaper. Character is everything. It supersedes education and wealth.
2. During the 13 months of my being a member of this forum, I have noticed that bac Thanh has an unsavory propensity to be very loose with facts. And I have confronted him every single time in the interest of truth. He also tends to put words in somebody's mouth. In this latest discussion about his lame and mundane example involving John Doe, he penned that I had not even determined Doe was guilty of adultery. I never said he was not. I pointed out to bac Thanh that any child who was not born as an idiot would easily see that Doe had engaged in an activity that should be frowned upon, not condoned. I contended that as adults, we should do things that are in the province of adults and that is to be concerned with the why, and not to be preoccupied with the what.
In closing, I request that bac Thanh respect facts, at least when he has a dialogue with me.
Wissai
Thinking
The following are thoughts that have percolated over the years in my
mind and now seem to be a bit clearer as a result of my having a
dialogue with bac Thanh over various subjects. I welcome all inputs.
Thinking is done MOSTLY with words. Words are concepts and
representations of the physical and metaphysical "realities". Thus,
it's safe to say that the more words a person has at his disposal, the
clearer his thought process is. Of course, some other factors can be in
play: imagination, ability to analyze and synthesize, etc...(etc means
there are others that exist but I know nothing of)
Thinking requires courage to reach to its logical conclusions which
may result in forcing us to abandon long cherished beliefs. In other
words, thinking requires intellectual honesty which is an anathema of
sophistry. Sophistry is an affliction of many individuals with verbal
dexterity and honesty paucity.
The ultimate goal of thinking is to arrive at knowledge and truth, not
to prove that one is smart. The way a person thinks, especially how he
presents his ideas tells us who he is, especially his character,
whether he resorts to cliches and trite expressions or he is trying
hard to inch towards hidden realities, even fresh insights.
In thinking about thinking, one is at the roots of language and
reasoning and character.
Wissai
Dec. 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
