Dyske Suematsu
Since the beginning
dyske@dyske.com
Works in United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Discussions (125) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Jess,

I've read your post carefully, but most of it seems to be based on your
misunderstanding caused by my lack of clarity in my original post. So, I
agree with most of them. There were some interesting historical facts and
arguments based on those facts. I agree with them too.

"The belief that neutrality is proactive is an illution."

The actress Halle Berry who won an Oscar last year is half black and half
white. The story that I heard (not being an expert on Hollywood facts) is
that she used to resist being categorized as black or white. This is rightly
so. The circumstances of the situation calls for a neutrality which is
reasonable. But there is just too much force in our society, driven by the
effect of our language, to label her either or. Last year, she gave in and
identified herself as African American. This was disappointing to me.

When reality presents a situation where it is only reasonable to be neutral
(i.e., for me personally, not to imply that it is for all), that is, all the
factors to be considered (within my knowledge and capacity) happen to be
equal in significance, then, just as in the case with Halle Berry, it is
hard to stay neutral. It takes a great amount of effort to stand there,
because the society wants you to decide.

Another instance of where this happens is when a sexually ambiguous child is
born. These hermaphrodites are subjected to various surgeries to normalize
their sexual status. In this process, their otherwise perfectly healthy
bodies are forever ruined. They go through these processes simply because
the society is not capable of accepting them as they are. Our society is
structured in such a way that you must be either or. These are forces of our
language, a categorical thinking.

--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Ivan,

I certainly do not want to imply that she has no right to call herself
black. My disappointment is indeed a selfish one. I simply wished that more
people would be willing not to identify themselves so much in terms of black
and white, which end up contributing to our schismatic way of seeing people.
But, this is a free country. She can do whatever she wants.

"Sorry, I don't get this. I don't understand why you are personally
affronted or feel it impacts on your when people make decisions about where
they stand and who they are."

Aside from my selfish disappointment, I agree with you. That is why I'm
defending myself from the criticisms on this list for my neutrality. My
neutrality seems to be offending some people, which I do not see why it
should.

"Just because something takes a 'great deal of effort' does not mean it is
inherently a good thing."

True also. This also applies to the views of anti-war and pro-war.

--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Joseph,

My original intent of this discussion was not to clarify what my neutral
position consist of. It was only a circumstantial point. But I appreciate
your agreement that neutrality can be a legitimate position. Perhaps, I
"failed to be neutral" but I can only try what I am capable of. It is not
like there is a clear line between success and failure.

-Dyske

> Actual neutrality would require a tremendous amount of knowledge and an
> advanced emotional maturity. People are not buying either,
> thinking it is an
> artificial pose. You have a long way to go to create belief in
> your ability to
> be neutral. And the full course of neutrality would require not
> only inner
> convincing, but outer as well. You fail to be neutral.

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Marc and Michael,

Let me address the criticisms towards Deconstruction/Post-structuralism.

"Your argument is a species of post structuralism which purports to be
intellectually heavyweight but which devolves down to a lazy 'everything is
relative' , 'it all depends on interpretation' that an eleven year old would
find unsophisticated." - Michael

As I argued in my previous posts, from my perspective, "everything is
relative" is what can encourage actions, not laziness. If things weren't
dependent on interpretations, our job would be to find that "truth" instead
of acting on incomplete knowledge and understanding. You could forever be
learning and studying before you can do anything about it. In this instance,
who decides at what point one is deemed qualified to act? In this sense,
Post-structuralism should encourage action since none's view can be
determined to be absolutely correct, just, or true.

"Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving it
to fall apart, like an old car body part. Forgetting the larger picture,
thus looking in a singular fashion reliant on the micro ignoring the macro.
It's a very human trait, fathers are very prone to this sort of function, it
is in part a type of autism and partly denial." - Marc

The colloquial definition of Deconstruction is to destruct or destroy, but
this is not what it aims to do. It does not aim to put back what it
destroyed, it is meant to build something entirely new; a new kind of
actions that is not based on the absolutism of "the truth".

My embrace of Deconstruction is accidental. I did not learn anything
fundamentally new from reading Derrida. The ideas of Deconstruction is built
into Eastern philosophy, especially in Zen Buddhism. The Ying and Yang logo,
for instance, is a neat representation of what "Differance" is: a whole
divided by opposing forces constantly at play.

I am not claiming that Japan has no logocentrism or that everything in Japan
is de-centered. It is again a matter of degree. The vast majority of
Japanese are godless. Godless in a sense that they have no central notion,
figure, or symbol that they rely on to be stabilized spiritually. Most
rituals of Japan are without god, or anything central for that matter. This
is where I come from. I only use Post-structuralism lingo, because it is
convenient in the West.

Logocentrism is a powerful stabilizing force but only within its center and
its components. The fact that we have multiple centers is ultimately the
problem of Logocentrism. In order for it to work, we would need a center
that can stabilize all of the sets of a center and its components, what
Derrida calls "Transcendental Signified". Unfortunately we do not have such
a thing. So any efforts to stabilize by centering will necessarily cause
instability among all the centers. This ultimately will fail, though it may
solve some problems here and there. Since it seems to partially work, we
keep on hoping that eventually we'll find the absolute center that will
stabilize everything once and for all. This will not happen. This is why
Derrida is proposing that we begin a new type of discourse where we make no
such assumption.

"True - but language is not the signifier, it is part of the greater sum.
Meaning it has a source, a beginning, then a motion, a mechanistic drive,
Cartesian mix-ups and assumptions that are not so relevant in the 21st
Century. Amazing discoveries of cognitive thought and subjective
intelligence from Quantum physics and psychology are blowing the Newtonian
and Cartesian thought patterns apart."

Marc, you lost me on this one. You have to elaborate this for me. I'm not
sure what you are trying to convey.

Regards,
Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Joseph,

> There are no degrees of neutrality, it is an infinitly thin door which
> seperates the air inside and outside.

If you define it so, but this definition does not have much relevance to
what we are speaking of. By this mathematical definition, Halle Berry, or
anyone who is half black and half white, will be forced to side with one
race or the other. Say, for instance, your mother is white and you traced
her side of the family and found that your great great grandfather was also
half black. Say, this will make you roughly 51% black and 49% white. By your
definition, you will be forced to declare yourself black because there is no
degrees of neutrality. For me, for all intents and purposes, I would respect
your stance to stay race-neutral in your identity.

> You are not neutral - you are undecided due to lack of knowledge
> and unwilling
> to make a commitment with only gut instinct to go on and
> unwilling to pursue
> the knowledge needed to make an informed decision.

This is only your speculation, so I can't comment on this. I personally feel
that I make enough efforts to learn from others and share my views with
others in order to better inform myself, but if you are telling me that what
I am doing is not enough (though you have no way of knowing), then be that
as it may.

-Dyske