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..well that is where we started...


Hi Ivan,

You have given me a great example of suffering that is caused by our cultral
construct. My point is that there is nothing wrong with terms such as
"black" and "white". It is when you project this categorization back into
reality, as if it was nature's intention to create these category, that
someone like your sister must unnecessarily suffer.

I agree, if she feels that she needs to identify herself with one or the
other, I have no criticism. I don't need to add to her suffering by
criticizing. My disappointment with Halle Berry, as I said, was my selfish
wish that a Hollywood star like her would stand up against the societal
pressures to be categorized when no such categorization is necessary. This
will create a role model for others whose situations do not reasonably call
for siding with either or.

Best Regards,
-Dyske

> constructs, surely this is nothing to do with their skin colour but to do
> with their position within society and their need to find a secure place
> therein? I have an (adopted) sister who is half Lebanese, half British.
> Growing up in a v. white town, she was generally called a
> 'half-caste'. Now,
> is that a term of abuse, or a useful statement of neutrality? I know what
> she thinks. She has spent her life to date trying to reconcile
> who and what
> she is. I have watched her tie her life in knots trying to find a safe
> harbour where she is accepted for what she is. And the thing is,
> in 'white'
> company she is white and in the company of arabs or persians she
> (oh, remind
> me, what colour are arabs, or are they neutral) is happy with herself.
> Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...


> >I ... wish that a Hollywood star ... would stand up against the societal
> > pressures to be categorized when no such categorization is necessary.
>
> Well, define 'necessary'. Obviously it was necessary at some
> level, because
> it happened.

Hi Ivan,

Good question.

There is nothing in her physicality that calls for labeling her race to be
black or white. The necessity is imposed by our culture that defines race in
terms of black and white. Imagine a society where race is not defined in
terms of color but in terms of the degree of shade (darkness and lightness).
As we have several different words to describe air temperature (hot, mild,
chilly, cold, freezing, etc..), this society simply have words to describe
several different shades of skin color. Say, s5, s4, s3, s2, and s1. In this
culture, the suffering of your sister would not exist. She is simply s3. She
is just one of 5 different categories of race.

Her suffering in our society becomes necessary just because we see and
impose categories of race in terms of black and white. In other words, we
are projecting these arbitrary categories back onto reality as if everyone
needs to fit into them.

I must stress that I am not saying that there is something inherently wrong
with our system of racial categorization. The 5 shade scheme can also create
problems similar in nature to ours as long as people try to project it back
into reality.

I am not advocating to abolish categorization. I am simply stating the
danger of projecting it back into reality.

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...


Hi Micheal,

> But it isn't language or even some sort of neutral
> 'cultural construct' that makes skin colour or
> ethnicity ( or indeed the way we 'choose' to
> categorize it) matter in our society, but the
> existence of racism, something which was actively
> created by our rulers initially to justify the slave
> trade.

For this one, please read my last post in response to Ivan. I would argue
that even without the existence of racism, we would still have a concept of
race. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept. Just as we have
words for ugly and beautiful to communicate certain things, we would still
communicate certain matters using racial categories. As some people have
pointed out in this discussion, differences can be embraced and enjoyed in
life. Just because some people like racists would use the notion of
difference in a negative way, that doesn't mean that we should take away the
joy that differences can bring to life.

> As with the war in Iraq I am not agnostic about this
> but choose to do what I can to combat it.
> Indeed the issues are interlinked - the government in
> UK are doing their best to link the issues of Iraq,
> Asylum and Terror with the effect that they have
> created a pogrom atmosphere and an opening for the
> nazis to emerge from their sewers.
> It's indicative of the kind of deadly passivity
> engendered by your position, Dyske, that after the
> initial concrete discussion of issues around the war
> in Iraq the whole thing has meandered into vague and
> abstract philosophising.

It is unfortunate that in this particular topic of Iraq, I happen to be
neutral. I'm usually not. However, I believe in the ultimate good of the
humanity. All we need to do is to stand up for what we believe in.
Eventually, in a long run, the good of the humanity will work itself out.
You are correct in that my neutral stance may prove to be wrong. If it does,
I will have to apologize to you. But there is also a chance that your stance
may turn out wrong. So we need to respect the opinions of others, and hope
that the best solution will present itself through the good of the humanity.

> You still didn't answer my question:
> If truth is a completely relative matter how do planes
> work, indeed how are we e mailing each other or how
> does any technology work?

The planes do work. We know that they do. That does not mean that we know
exactly why they do. Some of it may be explainable by Newtonian physics, but
as we all know, Quantum mechanics is refuting some of its claims. Who knows,
some new theories in the future may contradict quantum mechanics too. So,
all these theories are nothing but interpretations of our natural phenomena.

> Two supplementaries: is racism a bad thing that we
> should actively opposes - yes or no?

Racism is in all of us. It is in you and it is in me. I make active efforts
in trying to catch my unconscious prejudice. So, the answer is yes.

> Is 500,000 deaths in Iraq from sanctions by 1996 'a
> price worth paying'( Madeleine Allbright) - yes or no?

The question naturally becomes: "worth what?" There will be so many factors
that I would have to take into consideration. And, that is where the
difficulty of the situation is.

Best Regards,
-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Joseph,

> You demonstrated a compassion for loss of life on both sides of
> the equation
> (to put it in neutral terms), yet are not making the effort to
> calculate (via
> knowledge acquisition) where the balance lies. Rather, you are defending
> inaction (unwillingness to pursue further) with a neutral
> position. I would be
> speculating if I called the reason for this as insensitivity,
> cowardness or
> laziness.

I know that this discussion has been going on for a long time and it is a
lot of text to read if you were to catch up with everything that we
discussed. So, I'm not going to criticize you for missing these statements
that I made before you posted your first one. And I also made it clear
several times that I am more than willing to acquire knowledge on this
issue. And also, it seems rather irrelevant to me to have to prove to you my
willingness.

"But I still insist that we take it easy. Anger can distort our thinking.
More than ever, we need to think clearly. I very much appreciate most of the
comments you've all raised. They are valuable perspectives. For me, this is
only a part of the learning process."

"Though you do not see me ostensively acting for the Iraq situation, that is
a result of my careful consideration of my own beliefs. My attitude may
change later, but by no means, I am apathetic. If I were, I would not be
involved in a discussion like this."

> You can't define "the truth" but you can know it. I know if you
> jump up you
> will come back down...however you will then try to define your
> way out..."what
> if I were in outer space and such and such" The truth is subject to our
> experience of reality. You can "say" all is possible, but action makes it
> possible.

Be that as it may. This is not something we can constructively discuss, for
it is, as you said, impossible to define.

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...


Hi Jess,

It is unfortunate that you started this discussion in the wrong footing. I
ask you please to re-read my original paragraph that "pissed" you off.

Here it is:

"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?"

The most important line here is: "If your argument about the passivity and
mediation were true..." Everything that follows falls under this HYPOTHESIS.
I have even acknowledged that this may have been misleading and unclear.
Yet, you insist on misunderstanding.

Let me paraphrase this paragraph. If there is such a thing as "facts
independent of interpretations" then we would have to give precedence to
those who have more facts. (I DO NOT advocate this view) If facts exist
independent of interpretations, then we would have to forever seek more
facts before we can act. (I DO NOT advocate this view) If you believed in
this, and acted on your limited knowledge, and if you caused something
disastrous, then how are you going to reconcile the fact that you acted on
limited knowledge (ignorance)? This question would only apply if you
believed in the view that facts exist independent of interpretations.

Devotedly contrary to this view, I believe that there are no facts
independent of interpretations. And therefore everyone's interpretations
have equal value. If you believe this, you can act even with the limited
knowledge that you have. Even if you cause something disastrous, what would
matter is that you tried to understand, learn, and interpret to the best of
your abilities. So, from my own personal perspective, I cannot blame,
accuse, criticize anyone for taking any sides: for, neutral, or against.
Personally, I have no interest in holding anyone accountable for their
views.

The line that you became "pissed off" with, is meant to raise a point that
if facts exists independent of interpretations, would not this be true? But
I DO NOT believe in that view. I'm quite opposite of it.

So, unfortunately most of what you have wrote in reply cannot be responded
since it is based on your misunderstanding.

Regarding ISNA:

What they oppose is to create another social construct called "third
gender". This makes sense, since it is the social construct that is making
them suffer in the first place. So, by creating yet another social
construct, you are not solving the true problem.

As you can see, they do advocate children to stay ambiguous until such time
as they can decide for themselves whether to be women, men, or stay neutral.

You are confusing the idea of creating another category for the middle, with
what I mean by "neutral". I certainly did not propose to create a racial
category called "gray".

Also please read other posts that I've written for this discussion. Staying
neutral does not equal ignoring differences. In fact, you cannot be neutral
without the differences. I do also embrace differences. Nowhere in my posts,
have I said that the differences should be abolished.

Also, regarding your view about ISNA's philosophy: I would suggest that you
watch interviews of these people who are organizing ISNA. If you would watch
the pains and sufferings that they went through and still are going through
as a result of unnecessary, socially imposed, corrective surgeries, I would
not think that you would so quickly dismiss their claims as being "badly
researched".

Dyske