Servetus said:
We can have a go in another thread, if you wish. Walt & Mearsheimer, as I understand, are considered "Realists." They (and their school) are having a monumental tug with neo-Conservatives. I see it as yet another in a series of conflicts between McDonalds and Burger King, Coke and Pepsi: in any case, at the end of the day, one gets a burger and soda whichever of the two wins.
start it up then - "politics and society" is the place to put it. my take on this is that you're thinking along the wrong axes of differentiation. if there is a "realist" vs "neo-con" worldview divide (i have more than once been accused of being a "neo-con", which i find laughably absurd) it is simply a symptom of a clash of values within the same value system, whereas there is a far larger divide between *value systems themselves*. for me, this can be best explained by "spiral dynamics", the fancy name for gravesian theory; both are "individualist-rationalist-scientistic" views in mutual conflict, but both defined against the earlier-order "communalist-absolutist-mythic" value system they believe they have transcended.
What would you say was the objection to Spinoza's venturing out and learning modern languages?
i can't believe there was any objection to modern languages per se, even latin - jews have never had the option to live without a lingua-franca (hence the historic lack of traction for absolute insularity) only to what he said in it; basically, he was coming up with radical theological statements in a conservative communalist environment - in fact, it's exactly the gravesian transition that i've just mentioned in the previous paragraph, only in direct conflict with the previous value system that he was transitioning out of.
There is, in my opinion, such a thing as too much insularity (e.g., and in general, the British National Party).
precisely my point. the bnp are the
reductio ad absurdum of the unexceptionable, though limited concept of the nation-state and national self-determination, based on a mistaken concept of congruence between one set of ethnicities and nationhood.
With "excesses" in this case being a matter of interpretation, naturally. One person's excess is another person's right to self-determination and one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
yes and no. for example, i cannot consider it justified to support the right of jews, having decided that they constitute a nation, to national self-determination and yet deny the same right to palestinians. however, one cannot reduce all distinctions to interpretative semantics, in my view. i tend to appeal in such cases to the "fair and reasonable" test, as a reasonable individual, although there are other ways of making this decision. there is difference between whether one considers a given action "reasonable", "justified" or "productive". it really depends on what one's purpose is. for me, genocidal intent is never any of these, whereas strategic or tactical intent can be "productive" without being "justified" and may be "reasonable" within a given set of circumstances. as you can see, this can hardly be translated into absolute principles about particular types of actions, or, to be more succinct - it depends.
Is sustainable Jewish culture necessarily defined by its separation and exclusiveness?
no; although some element of separation and exclusiveness is necessary to some extent there are circumstances when both their importance and the degree to which they are defining characteristics are neither reasonable, justified or productive; the haredi sector in israel being a case in point; in this case the size of the sector makes this strategy counterproductive and unreasonable, whereas in, say, gateshead, it might be reasonable, or in the soviet union, justified or, in C19th lithuania, productive. however, for me, if you're looking at a sustainable culture, i don't believe that sub-segments can be sustainable in their own right. i believe in a portfolio approach; we need nutty-beards for certain things just as we need deli-nebbishes and beach-commandos for others. i just don't put nutty-beards in charge of the treasury, deli-nebbishes in charge of foreign policy and beach-commandos in charge of learning culture.
The Germans enacted endogamy with a vengeance.
and in a way that was neither reasonable nor justified, although it might well have been "productive".
Because I am still sparring with Ben Masada, who seems to expect capitulation rather than dialog from Christians
in which i have warned him that he is in breach of this site's code of conduct.
and who, when he didn't deny that it happened, justified the use of collective punishment against those whom he called Children of Darkness, the Palestinians.
a statement which he considers reasonable, justified and productive and which i am somewhat less sanguine about to say the least. that doesn't mean i'm inclined to bend over for hamas.
He told Andrew that he was here to be a "light unto the Gentiles," and I wonder what he meant by it, exactly. "Light" can sometimes burn.
it's a well-known phrase but i think you are right to pick it up in this way.
I might be more vocal about the General Belgrano if I, as an American tax-payer, had been made to finance and support the operation.
president reagan was certainly supportive of mrs thatcher at the time. however conveniently controversial the attack is depicted as being by the argentinians, its introduction into casual conversation with a falklander would be construed as an attempt to divert the discussion into emotive territory rather than deal with the plain facts of the matter, namely that the sinking of the belgrano was done in the defence of the islands against a dictatorship bent on depriving citizens of another country of their right to democractic self-determination. similarly, if i were talking (as i often do) to an argentinian, i would be unlikely to introduce this into the conversation if i wanted it to remain civil.
At any rate, the question remains: does "fighting the battles of the Lord," (Maimonides' expression concerning the Messiah) include such things as dropping white phosphorus upon Palestinians in the Gaza Strip?
that would depend on whether such an action would be considered justifiable as part of a "milhemet mitzvah", which i would be unlikely.
Is this what is meant, for instance, by the verse (somewhere in scripture), "not by might, not by power, but by my spirit saith the Lord."
well, clearly not, which is pretty much why ben and i are in fundamental disagreement on how this is to be interpreted.
I wouldn't attribute the impoverishment to exile, except in a spiritual sense of ego separation from Deity.
i guess that's the point i'm making. such people are in double exile from what is known in the mystical tradition as "keneseth yisrael", the "community of israel". exile is a quite powerful anagogical device to us.
I don't see how being separated from the nation-state of Israel, for instance, was the source of their impoverishment.
no, neither would i; it is not the nation-state that is the source of spiritual uplift, vital though this status is at this point in time for temporary, pragmatic convenience, but the deeper connection to the Land that flows from the Torah; if you not connected to the latter by virtue of failing to observe its precepts, you are unconnected from the Source of blessing and cannot, as we say, "inherit the Land". bear in mind that this is a space which is highly intolerant of the spiritually corrupt, something which those who inhabit it at present, jewish or otherwise, would do well to remember.
Sorry if things get a bit prickly, sometimes, but these are often sensitive issues and I know of no other way to address them.
your sensitivity is appreciated.
b'shalom
bananabrain
