Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Mouse on "Meanings"

When we excuse an action we are admitting that the action was wrong. We justify an action when we believe it was the right thing to do. We have what may be called the Torquemada Solution by which we excuse (but do not justify) our killings. Temporarily suspending reason, we can imagine that Torquemada, the most effective of the Spanish Grand Inquisitors, acted out of the belief that his victims and their heresies were preventing the salvation of humankind. Once we understand “salvation” the way Torquemada understood it – as deliverance from eternal torment in a lake of fire – we easily see that he could have justified to himself far greater atrocities than those he actually committed. To Torquemada, not this life, but some other he imagined as more desirable, was the ultimate value. We can thus understand some of our disregard for human life as natural effects of the gravest sort of error.

We justify war on the basis of what we perceive as “injustice beyond the ordinary.” Sometimes we’re right. Given its result, we can justify the American Civil War, though the abolition of slavery was not that war’s original intent. And even though we were not fully aware of Nazi Germany’s atrocities when we decided to enter the Second Great War, if we had known of them we should have been compelled to take up arms. Others of our wars were not so justifiable as those, and if we had known the truth of the reasons behind them, we should not have involved ourselves in them.

Perhaps, though, we ask the impossible if we demand that all the people should be informed of all the facts before deciding significant issues. We are after all a republic in which elected representatives make decisions of the war-or-peace sort for us. Most of us have neither the time nor the intellect to devote to an assessment of the relevant issues. But even if time were afforded us, and even if all of us were reasonably educated concerning foreign affairs, our ability to determine the truth of the matter would still be impaired by the fact that we are often compelled by unconscious forces to believe the lie and doubt the truth. Difficulties far greater than those facing Pavlov’s dog face those whose “bells” are not mere bells but are plausible theories indelibly imprinted upon their minds. We love our freedom, and would be willing to die for it, but let the word “freedom” be attached to broad expanses of our neuronal territory, let it be emotionally interleaved with all our conceptions – not merely the most fundamental – and we will find ourselves dying for causes that have little or nothing to do with actual freedom, ours or anyone else’s.

When, for example, the word is repeated to us like a meditator’s mantra to justify the ambitions of a deluded politician, it is only by an almost superhuman effort that we ask whether an Iraqi would, to obtain his freedom, be willing to be killed by a foreigner who may be driven as much by a need for the approbation of his constituents (or contributors) as by a genuine care for the Iraqi, his wife, their sisters, brothers, and children – those the foreigner must slaughter in order to obtain the Iraqi’s freedom for him. And even if we were to ask ourselves that question, perhaps the word “freedom” will have been so positively charged by our own history, that we would answer for the Iraqi – who had no say in the matter – that he would surely welcome death if only his heirs could be assured a portion of that blessed freedom. It would perhaps never occur to us to wonder if the word “freedom” means to the Iraqi what it means to us.

To people unfamiliar with the Arab culture, that last sentence may seem only a rhetorical conjecture. It may seem that even if the Iraqi has a notion of freedom different from ours, his must certainly be false. Those so deluded will perhaps never have understood that all words – all but a logical few – have gotten their meanings out of human experience. T. E. Lawrence’s words provide a taste of the meaning of “freedom” as it might feel in the Arab mind, a feeling I can understand but do not share.

We had ridden far out over the rolling plains of North Syria to a ruin of the Roman period which the Arabs believed was made by a prince of the border as a desert-palace for his queen. The clay of its building was said to have been kneaded for greater richness, not with water, but with the precious essential oils of flowers. My guides, sniffing the air like dogs, led me from crumbling room to room saying ‘This is jessamine, this violet, this rose.’

But at last Dahoun drew me: ’Come and smell the very sweetest scent of all’ – and we went into the main lodging, to the gaping window sockets of its eastern face, and there drank with open mouths of the effortless, empty, eddyless wind of the desert….

‘This,’ they told me, ‘is the best….’
“Seven Pillars of Wisdom.”

I have seen a lot of desert country, mostly in Arizona, but have experienced nothing like the exhilaration Lawrence was describing. To me the desert is a hot place. In no way does it figure into my idea of freedom. But just as I might include aspects of “cowboy life” in the feeling that goes along with my conception of freedom, so must the desert involve itself in the experiential life of the Arab. The author from whose book I grabbed the Lawrence quote [Robert Lacey, The Kingdom] spoke with great understanding of the Bedouin’s nomadic life, particularly of the ghazzu, which he briefly defines as “the raid,” but which another Englishman defined as “a cross between Arthurian chivalry and County Cricket.” The idea was to steal another tribe’s camels, but in doing so, one had to obey the rules of the game: no molesting women and no raids between certain hours of the night. If your ghazzu failed and you were captured, the rules also required that you be fed well, and then turned loose, but your “team’s” camels and all but one firearm were confiscated. The “trudging back to camp after an unsuccessful raid was, apparently, a part of the game.”

Perhaps in the Bedouin mind freedom feels something like being out on a raid, knowing that even if you fail, the rules of the game will be followed, something like the feeling I get when I think of home.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All the great scholars who have studied American character have come
to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war.
What we hate is not casualties but losing." - Michael A. Ledeen

Tue Apr 25, 05:47:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peace is like the wind described in the Lawrence quote; so sweet, so satisfying, yet so elusive. If we could grab it,if we could hold on to it, and clutch it to our chest we would; but sadly, like the wind- peace passes through our hands and leaves us in the heat of a dry and dusty land- thirsting for what eluded our grasp.
If we are a war-like people we are no different than any other people who has crawled across the face of the Earth. Lust, or greed, or envy, or the desire to control how others work out their own salvation is the cause of war.And yet, the Bedouin camel game sounds like good clean fun- until somebody flies a plane into your building and you realize that it's not a game after all, and the only choices you are left with are to fight back or to lay down and die- but, oh the desert air, if only we could grasp it....

And still I pray for peace.

Tue Apr 25, 08:13:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Out there in the great desert and breathing the beautiful desert air is the man that ordered the flying of the airplanes into tall buildings.The game is still being played.

Destroying Saddam's arsenal (oops, I mean keeping him from building an arsenal, funny how those words have changed) did not require regime change.

There are two factors which make Bush's actions worse than the others
(except possibly LBJ): 1) our credibility has been damaged, and 2)
Bush's true reason (preventative war) represented a fundamental change in policy which should have been openly debated instead of stealthly implemented.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was an enemy of
Al Qaeda, and kept it out of the country. It makes no sense to
link Iraq and Al Qaeda, but I guess it doesn't have to make any
sense, from the administration's standpoint, as long as people
will buy it as a justification for the Iraq war.

Why would Iran not want nukes now, after seeing what happened to Iraq who didn't have them?

Wed Apr 26, 04:34:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something I forgot to add for my reply to Ce:Last December Bush called the Iraqi election "a watershed moment in
the story of freedom." But if our invasion and occupation has created
a watershed moment, it's one yielding rivers of resentment and
bitterness that may poison the global landscape for decades to come.
And when Bush talks of promoting freedom, the world sees the freedom
of America to do whatever we please, no matter how many nations oppose
us. America's Vietnam-era leaders made much of their embrace of
freedom as well, while overthrowing elected governments from Brazil to
Chile to Greece. The war they waged in Southeast Asia killed two to
five million Vietnamese, plus more deaths in Laos and Cambodia. And as
with Iraq, those making the key decisions were profoundly insulated:
Out of 234 eligible sons of Senators and Congressmen, only 28 served
in Vietnam, only 19 saw combat, only one was wounded and none were
killed. In Iraq, as we know, the chickenhawks led the march to war,
and the sole Congressman or Senator with a son who initially served
was Democrat Tim Johnson, who the Republicans still attacked as
insufficiently patriotic. The sons of Republican Senator Kit Bond and
three Republican congressmen have joined him since, but like Bush and
his cohorts, most who've made this war possible have never been
intimately touched by it.

Wed Apr 26, 05:03:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter what we have or haven't done, and nothing we could do could make these zeolots beat thier swords into plowshares. They hate us and they want to see us destroyed- they hate us because we are American, because we watch MTV and wear levi jeans; they hate us because our women don't wear clothing that covers them from head to toe, they hate us because we celebrate freedom, and diversity, and because we worship the wrong God. Don't kid yourself Robin, they hate you as much as they hate me; they'd fly a plane into your building just as soon as they'd fly a plane into mine. Do they care who the president is- Clinton was president the first time they tried to blow up the World Trade Center and when they slammed a bomb laden boat into the USS Cole in 2000, it didn't matter who the president was;Carter was president when they stormed our embassey in Iran and held American Citizens captive( they loved Carter so much they vowed not to release these American hostages until Reagan was sworn in as president- I guess we're lucky they didn't chop off any one's head back then though), Listen kid, if they win it won't matter who you are and what you think of America- they cut off a guys head from my area despite the fact that his father hates Bush and this war just as much as you seem to( who doesn'y hate war, war is hell!);but remember,you are thier enemy because you live a life counter to what they believe is righteous, wake up kid- it ain't too late! Yet.

BTW regarding Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon I suggest that you pray hard that it doesn't happen- otherwise I hope you like it hot because if they get the bomb it is going to get pretty hot around here.

Wed Apr 26, 06:14:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Benedict S. said...

I have written very little on the blog about my feelings toward the administration's ill-advised invasion of Iraq. My feeling is that the Afghanistan thing was in order and ought to have been pursued to its conclusion. Perhaps, we would be as enmired in difficulties there as we are in Iraq, but at least we could justify our actions, and not have to ask others to excuse them.

As for George himself . . . I think I said somewere here, he's just a simple man from Texas, easily led by others who are not so simple. We hold him accountable because we must.

Thu Apr 27, 05:52:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ce,you are as caught up in the propaganda as most Americans on why most Middle Easterns hate Americans.They could care less about our MTV and levi jeans; they hate us because our women don't wear clothing that covers them from head to toe, they hate us because we celebrate freedom, and diversity, and because we worship the wrong God.Not true.


Why do the "terrorists" and other people of the Middle East hate us?
The truth is much more complicated than George Bush's disingenuous,
propagandistic explanation to the American public. However, Bush's
assertion was accurate in one sense. When he said, "They hate what we
see right here in this chamber," he captured the true focus of the ire
of the Arab world: the U.S. government.

Since the internal combustion engine became an indispensable aspect of
economic vitality, the United States government has invaded, exploited,
manipulated and cheated Arab nations in its ongoing quest to purloin
their precious oil. Preying upon internal strife and ongoing unrest
amongst varying factions and sects of the Islamic faith, the U.S.
government has raped the people of the Middle East for decades.
Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Acts of retaliation against
the U.S. are the result of victimized people attempting to thwart their
over-powering, deceitful oppressors in Washington.

I am sorry mouse if I am straying off topic.

Thu Apr 27, 03:43:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robin -Torquemada would be proud of you kid!

Thu Apr 27, 07:34:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Benedict S. said...

Robin, there are no topic rules here. Whatever the spirit tells you, that's what you write. I don't share your opinion of the Islamic motives, but if you restrict that view to the extremes of Islam -- the Wahhabi sect -- you could be right. But then, so could CE. The Wahhabis may feel economically put upon (as you suggest) or morally outraged (as CE suggests). Either way, they are a danger to those they see as their offenders.

CE: Torquemada simply acted in a radical way on what most most Christians accept as the truth. I know very few Christians who do not believe in the torments of Hell in the hereafter. Torq went wrong when he adopted (probably with the authority of Rome) the notion that people's actions could lead to the condemnation of others. But then, he may not have believed that at all. He may have been torturing those people as a means to bring them into the fold.

Modern Islamic radicals seem to hold with Torq's assumed conviction. The radicals feel compelled to destroy all infidels (thee and me). G. Bush, on the otherhand, seems to hold to the other impression we may derive from Torq's behavior. He's destroying villages in order to save them.

BTW. There's nothing in Islam to support the Wahhabist convictions of al Queda.

Also, BTW: it's a bit of a stretch, Robin, to think that the people of the oil-rich middle-east have been economically oppressed. For the most part, they've never had it so good, though, I would agree that, just like here, the difference in wealth between the very rich and the very poor is great.

Fri Apr 28, 07:11:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ce,please stop calling me kid,I am not a Billy Goat.

Iraq is not Wahhabist. Osama bin Laden is alive and well and planning his next atrocity in Pakistan,more than likely.


The bottom line seems to be Iraq is sitting on the 2nd biggest oil
reserve in the world. Whoever controls it, controls a big chunk of the world economy.And one other thing: Israel. the one country in
the world Iraq genuinely threatens, right now, is Israel. Does
President Bush really propose to sacrifice thousands of American
soldiers and innocent people in Iraq to temporarily lift a threat to
Israel - without expecting any quid pro qupo from Sharon over Palestine? Does he really expect anyone else in the world to support him on those terms? Who knows now since Sharon is alomost dead.

Fri Apr 28, 03:00:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Benedict S. said...

Right, Robin. Iraq was never Wahhabist. It was in fact, under Saddam, one of the two secular governments in the region. Syria is the other. . . another reason why it is hard to figure ush's invasion.

Israel tries to be secular, but its religious element is about as fanatical in their way as the Wahhabis are in theirs. Good questions about our future commitments to Israel. The best argument -- among a paltry lot --for the invasion of Iraq has to do with providing a backdoor shield for Israel.

Fri Apr 28, 03:46:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home