PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Hi Joseph,
> Why take sides? If you accept a dualistic approach, then you entered the
> mathematical and must be precise. If you don't recognize the difference,
> then
> there is no side. You answer is mixing different domains.
I'm not sure if this is going to lead to any constructive discussion, but my
argument is based on the understanding that Halle Berry, and my example of
51% black person, do recognize the difference between black and white, which
is not difficult to imagine. Given this situation, if she is to adapt your
definition of "neutral", then she will not be capable of staying neutral and
will be forced to take sides. Otherwise, you will criticize her of being
unwilling to commit. If your definition of neutral is this precise middle,
and if you refuse to use the word in any other looser form, then I would
have to use some other word. However, in this sort of discussion where two
parties must keep redefining words, it never leads to anything constructive.
This is another manifestation of the impossibility of "the truth".
> This is not speculation, you told me of your lack of knowledge and
> demonstrated
> your unwillingness.
Everyone's knowledge is always limited. One can always learn more. In this
sense, yes, I could say that I have lack of knowledge, but unwillingness?
Where did I give you the impression that I'm unwilling to learn more?
-Dyske
> Why take sides? If you accept a dualistic approach, then you entered the
> mathematical and must be precise. If you don't recognize the difference,
> then
> there is no side. You answer is mixing different domains.
I'm not sure if this is going to lead to any constructive discussion, but my
argument is based on the understanding that Halle Berry, and my example of
51% black person, do recognize the difference between black and white, which
is not difficult to imagine. Given this situation, if she is to adapt your
definition of "neutral", then she will not be capable of staying neutral and
will be forced to take sides. Otherwise, you will criticize her of being
unwilling to commit. If your definition of neutral is this precise middle,
and if you refuse to use the word in any other looser form, then I would
have to use some other word. However, in this sort of discussion where two
parties must keep redefining words, it never leads to anything constructive.
This is another manifestation of the impossibility of "the truth".
> This is not speculation, you told me of your lack of knowledge and
> demonstrated
> your unwillingness.
Everyone's knowledge is always limited. One can always learn more. In this
sense, yes, I could say that I have lack of knowledge, but unwillingness?
Where did I give you the impression that I'm unwilling to learn more?
-Dyske
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq.. well that is where we started...
Hi Jess,
> I would guess this comes from your views on the importance of language. My
> deal on this is that words are important but you are getting hung up on the
> wrong ones. You've used the minefield of language in race as an example, let
> me call another heavily loaded language such as disability. The language is
> studied with explosives. Disabled. Handicapped. Physically Challenged etc
> Which one is the loaded word. Should the 'disabled' person strive to be none
> of the above? Should the 'other' strive to remain 'neutral' and refuse to name
> the difference? If they are handicapped are they cap in hand? If they are
> physically challenged are they not trying hard enough (for challenge implies
> something to be aimed for)? If they are disabled are they good for the
> nothing? By using the words do you make them so?
I'm not sure what this has to do with my example of Halle Berry, but I'll
respond to this as a new discussion. The last question seems to sum up all
of the questions that precedes it, so I'm going to answer that.
I see that the meaning of a word is in its specific use, in its specific
context and circumstances. There are uses of these words that may cause
unnecessary frustration, stereotyping, and suffering, while in other
situations, their use may be perfectly appropriate. Hence there is no
all-encompassing answer to your question.
> The key thing here is these words are constructs to express difference and
> this is where I guess you and I would part. How does one stay neutral in
> describing difference?
This paragraph and a few that follows this one seems to come from your
misunderstanding that I intend to ignore differences. I'm not sure why you
interpreted it that way, but if someone is obviously black and if he wants
to call himself black, then I do not have any issues. That is perfectly
reasonable. It is when someone like Halle Berry who is 50-50, who feels she
needs to side with one side or the other by the societal pressures, that I
see unnecessary struggles arise. Even in this instance, the real culprit
isn't her, but our cultural construct called race and its tendencies to
pressure her to side. Because the society does not like to accept someone to
be neither. "Neutral" does not mean that you do not see the difference. It
just means that you happen to be inbetween. If you did not recognize the
difference, you could not even use the word "neutral". After all, you will
be asked: "neutral to what?"
> In other mails you have talked about derrida (derrida always pissed me off I'm
> afraid) No matter how the binary is constructed white/black black/white -
> disruption does not come from white=black or black=white. A denial of what we
> see and feel does equate to either harmony or acceptance just a weak/strong
> infinite.
> I would guess this comes from your views on the importance of language. My
> deal on this is that words are important but you are getting hung up on the
> wrong ones. You've used the minefield of language in race as an example, let
> me call another heavily loaded language such as disability. The language is
> studied with explosives. Disabled. Handicapped. Physically Challenged etc
> Which one is the loaded word. Should the 'disabled' person strive to be none
> of the above? Should the 'other' strive to remain 'neutral' and refuse to name
> the difference? If they are handicapped are they cap in hand? If they are
> physically challenged are they not trying hard enough (for challenge implies
> something to be aimed for)? If they are disabled are they good for the
> nothing? By using the words do you make them so?
I'm not sure what this has to do with my example of Halle Berry, but I'll
respond to this as a new discussion. The last question seems to sum up all
of the questions that precedes it, so I'm going to answer that.
I see that the meaning of a word is in its specific use, in its specific
context and circumstances. There are uses of these words that may cause
unnecessary frustration, stereotyping, and suffering, while in other
situations, their use may be perfectly appropriate. Hence there is no
all-encompassing answer to your question.
> The key thing here is these words are constructs to express difference and
> this is where I guess you and I would part. How does one stay neutral in
> describing difference?
This paragraph and a few that follows this one seems to come from your
misunderstanding that I intend to ignore differences. I'm not sure why you
interpreted it that way, but if someone is obviously black and if he wants
to call himself black, then I do not have any issues. That is perfectly
reasonable. It is when someone like Halle Berry who is 50-50, who feels she
needs to side with one side or the other by the societal pressures, that I
see unnecessary struggles arise. Even in this instance, the real culprit
isn't her, but our cultural construct called race and its tendencies to
pressure her to side. Because the society does not like to accept someone to
be neither. "Neutral" does not mean that you do not see the difference. It
just means that you happen to be inbetween. If you did not recognize the
difference, you could not even use the word "neutral". After all, you will
be asked: "neutral to what?"
> In other mails you have talked about derrida (derrida always pissed me off I'm
> afraid) No matter how the binary is constructed white/black black/white -
> disruption does not come from white=black or black=white. A denial of what we
> see and feel does equate to either harmony or acceptance just a weak/strong
> infinite.
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Hi Ruth,
In your text on the website as well as in the response you wrote for me, I
do perceive your schismatic view of the world: artists vs. ordinary people,
you vs. barbaric society, those who are for the war vs. against, vain,
greedy, and power-driven people vs. conscientious people, the media people
vs. normal people. Those with schismatic views of the world must also
embrace unity since unity is what defines schism, and vice versa.
Let me clarify my position on the war before I go on (in order to avoid any
confusions). I'm neither for nor against it. I understand both sides of the
arguments and they both make sense to me, and I see no reason to force
myself to choose one or the other.
I watched on TV the anti-war protest in Washington DC. Various speakers came
up on the podium and delivered their own agendas. They all had very
different perspectives and reasons for protesting the war, many of which
contradicted each other. Unity is a troublesome concept in this regard. At
one extreme, you could be demonstrating with them because you adore Saddam
Hussein. Even among those who hold seemingly similar views, if you dig
deeper, you'll start to discover a variety of differences. You'd think that
if you believe in the same bible, you'll agree on everything, but look at
how many different Christian religions we have in this world. Take even one
small school of it, say, the Quakers. Even within the Quakers, there are so
many differences, and some people prefer to go to a specific church of
Quakers. Where do these differences lead to in the end? To individuals.
Ultimately unity, as well as schism, is an illusion that only your mind
sees. Unity can give us a very powerful feeling of euphoria, but this
euphoria has no basis in reality since both unity and schism are concoctions
of our mind.
Your analysis of the media seems to assume that there are facts independent
of interpretations. Even if you were the weapons inspector in Iraq, at the
moment you interpret your own experience it ceases to be reality. It is an
interpretation that cannot claim any more accuracy than any other
interpretations in the world. If your argument about the passivity and
mediation were true, we should simply trust our government officials who are
so much closer to the reality of Iraq than any of us are. Tony Blair has
access to information that you do not have. You might be making a rash
decision based on your limited knowledge of the situation. And, your rash
decision does have an influence in the outcome of this event. What if your
decision ended up contributing to something disastrous and inhumane?
Your words, my words, the words of newspapers, the words of TV news: they
are all interpretations. It is not possible to report reality as reality.
All are interpretations. Depending on what you are looking for, any
interpretation can be useful. In this sense, no interpretation can
absolutely be better, more significant, or more accurate. Everyone has the
right to broadcast their own interpretations. For me, it is all the more
disturbing when any media or any individual claim their accuracy,
objectivity, or higher awareness.
For me, my analysis of your writing wasn't simply about semantics. I believe
that language is the source of many of our problems in this world. Language
concocts its own world and we project that back to reality, and we act on
this simulacrum. As an example of how this takes place in our everyday
lives, you can read my latest post on my website about the rape case in
California.
http://www.dyske.com/default.asp?view_ids6
Projecting a schismatic view of the world end up creating schisms in
reality.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
In your text on the website as well as in the response you wrote for me, I
do perceive your schismatic view of the world: artists vs. ordinary people,
you vs. barbaric society, those who are for the war vs. against, vain,
greedy, and power-driven people vs. conscientious people, the media people
vs. normal people. Those with schismatic views of the world must also
embrace unity since unity is what defines schism, and vice versa.
Let me clarify my position on the war before I go on (in order to avoid any
confusions). I'm neither for nor against it. I understand both sides of the
arguments and they both make sense to me, and I see no reason to force
myself to choose one or the other.
I watched on TV the anti-war protest in Washington DC. Various speakers came
up on the podium and delivered their own agendas. They all had very
different perspectives and reasons for protesting the war, many of which
contradicted each other. Unity is a troublesome concept in this regard. At
one extreme, you could be demonstrating with them because you adore Saddam
Hussein. Even among those who hold seemingly similar views, if you dig
deeper, you'll start to discover a variety of differences. You'd think that
if you believe in the same bible, you'll agree on everything, but look at
how many different Christian religions we have in this world. Take even one
small school of it, say, the Quakers. Even within the Quakers, there are so
many differences, and some people prefer to go to a specific church of
Quakers. Where do these differences lead to in the end? To individuals.
Ultimately unity, as well as schism, is an illusion that only your mind
sees. Unity can give us a very powerful feeling of euphoria, but this
euphoria has no basis in reality since both unity and schism are concoctions
of our mind.
Your analysis of the media seems to assume that there are facts independent
of interpretations. Even if you were the weapons inspector in Iraq, at the
moment you interpret your own experience it ceases to be reality. It is an
interpretation that cannot claim any more accuracy than any other
interpretations in the world. If your argument about the passivity and
mediation were true, we should simply trust our government officials who are
so much closer to the reality of Iraq than any of us are. Tony Blair has
access to information that you do not have. You might be making a rash
decision based on your limited knowledge of the situation. And, your rash
decision does have an influence in the outcome of this event. What if your
decision ended up contributing to something disastrous and inhumane?
Your words, my words, the words of newspapers, the words of TV news: they
are all interpretations. It is not possible to report reality as reality.
All are interpretations. Depending on what you are looking for, any
interpretation can be useful. In this sense, no interpretation can
absolutely be better, more significant, or more accurate. Everyone has the
right to broadcast their own interpretations. For me, it is all the more
disturbing when any media or any individual claim their accuracy,
objectivity, or higher awareness.
For me, my analysis of your writing wasn't simply about semantics. I believe
that language is the source of many of our problems in this world. Language
concocts its own world and we project that back to reality, and we act on
this simulacrum. As an example of how this takes place in our everyday
lives, you can read my latest post on my website about the rape case in
California.
http://www.dyske.com/default.asp?view_ids6
Projecting a schismatic view of the world end up creating schisms in
reality.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
Hi Michael,
Let's take it easy.
I didn't meant to imply that I condemn "real engagement". In my previous
post, I have stated that I see everyone's interpretation as being equal in
value. This gives a good reason for anyone to act on his or her own beliefs.
If you go by the assumption that there is such a thing as "the truth", then
you cannot make any moves because there is always more that you can find out
about the truth. At what point is it justified to engage? And your
engagement will not be as qualified as that of Tony Blair since he knows
more than you do.
The fact that I'm neutral on this issue is a coincidence, and just because I
am neutral does not mean that other people must also be neutral, or that I
condemn people who are not neutral.
The fact that many people are pressured to decide which side to be on, is
also an effect of our language. It is a manifestation of logocentrism that
is especially strong in the West. As with good and evil, ugly and beautiful,
black and white; we tend to want to draw a line and identify which it is.
The situation with Iraq is the same. It is a spectrum, not a binary
situation. Considering what I know of the issue, weighing the pros and the
cons, I happen to be around the middle. And I strongly take a stance to stay
wherever I feel appropriate. I'm not going to be pressured by others, nor by
the effect of language. This does not mean that I am apathetic to the
situation, nor uncaring.
Regards,
-Dyske
> well! you clarified your postion, we've avoided any
> confusion - great - that must be a relief to the
> parents of the 500,000 kids that have died because of
> sanctions, and the thousands of young soldiers who
> will die, or to those who will fall under the category
> of 'collateral damage'.
> What your apparently sophisticated arguments hide is
> a contempt for any sort of real engagement with life ,
> which inevitably means taking moral postions and which
> inevitably means trying to establish the truth of
> things which you dismiss so loftily.
> You know - rather Wally Keeler, who at least is
> passionate and cares, than your smug abstentionism.
Let's take it easy.
I didn't meant to imply that I condemn "real engagement". In my previous
post, I have stated that I see everyone's interpretation as being equal in
value. This gives a good reason for anyone to act on his or her own beliefs.
If you go by the assumption that there is such a thing as "the truth", then
you cannot make any moves because there is always more that you can find out
about the truth. At what point is it justified to engage? And your
engagement will not be as qualified as that of Tony Blair since he knows
more than you do.
The fact that I'm neutral on this issue is a coincidence, and just because I
am neutral does not mean that other people must also be neutral, or that I
condemn people who are not neutral.
The fact that many people are pressured to decide which side to be on, is
also an effect of our language. It is a manifestation of logocentrism that
is especially strong in the West. As with good and evil, ugly and beautiful,
black and white; we tend to want to draw a line and identify which it is.
The situation with Iraq is the same. It is a spectrum, not a binary
situation. Considering what I know of the issue, weighing the pros and the
cons, I happen to be around the middle. And I strongly take a stance to stay
wherever I feel appropriate. I'm not going to be pressured by others, nor by
the effect of language. This does not mean that I am apathetic to the
situation, nor uncaring.
Regards,
-Dyske
> well! you clarified your postion, we've avoided any
> confusion - great - that must be a relief to the
> parents of the 500,000 kids that have died because of
> sanctions, and the thousands of young soldiers who
> will die, or to those who will fall under the category
> of 'collateral damage'.
> What your apparently sophisticated arguments hide is
> a contempt for any sort of real engagement with life ,
> which inevitably means taking moral postions and which
> inevitably means trying to establish the truth of
> things which you dismiss so loftily.
> You know - rather Wally Keeler, who at least is
> passionate and cares, than your smug abstentionism.
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq
> Although you dont say it, I presume your disturbance applies equally to
> governments, political parties, politicians etc claim their accuracy,
> objectivity or higher awareness?
Hi Ivan,
Yes, it does apply to them. However, oddly, we tend to assume whatever
politicians say are always only their opinions. It is only the media that we
expect to be "objective", but that is only a pretense, or an illusionary
premise that we buy into.
-Dyske
> governments, political parties, politicians etc claim their accuracy,
> objectivity or higher awareness?
Hi Ivan,
Yes, it does apply to them. However, oddly, we tend to assume whatever
politicians say are always only their opinions. It is only the media that we
expect to be "objective", but that is only a pretense, or an illusionary
premise that we buy into.
-Dyske