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


> Willingness is not passive acceptance of conversations. You
> converse with me to
> prove your point of view (your are not expressing, you are proving), to
> convince me of your point of view you must convince me of your
> willingness.

I do not understand what this convincing consists of. As an illustration of
what you mean by convincing, perhaps you can convince me of your willingness
to learn from me.

Dyske

DISCUSSION

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


> Quantum mechanics offers an explanation of things that
> happen at the sub atomic level -it supplements rather
> than supplanting Newtonian physics.
> It's introduction in your argument is a red herring:
> nobody has ever suggested that there may be
> significant quantum effects at work in the mechanical
> operation operation of a plane.

Before I address this issue, I must preface it with the fact that I am no
physicist. I can only argue within my knowledge of physics.

Many consider Quantum mechanics to be a paradigm shift of sorts from
Newtonian physics, since the former was invented to explain sub-atomic
phenomena that were not possible with the latter. While it may not have
changed the practical usage of Newtonian physics, Quantum mechanics put
Newtonian physics in a new light. It is true that, for all practical
purposes, things at the sub-atomic level will not make any difference to the
plane staying in the air. In this sense, the discovery of Quantum mechanics
did not make any practical contribution. But when we are speaking of "the
truth" we are not simply speaking of practical matters. After all, humans
were able to boil water before we had any scientific explanations for it,
and the explanations did not do much to the process either. Most of us are
still using fire to boil water. Likewise, one could explain the sub-atomic
phenomena occurring to the plane and to the air surrounding it with Quantum
mechanics without having any practical consequences for it. Since there is
no practical merit in doing such an analysis, most physicists would probably
not bother with it. But this does not mean that the Quantum explanations
cannot be applied to it.

Many natural phenomena were/are unexplainable. Over time we came up with new
explanations, or different explanations for the same phenomena. Ultimately
the most relevant point of this argument is that just because we have an
explanation for something, does not mean that we know "the truth".
Explanations change over time, or there could be multiple ways of explaining
something. Explanations are nothing more than interpretations.

> To sum up - we have a theory which matches what we see
> time after time actually happening - this is a truth
> which is independent of opinion or the way it is
> expressed in language.

Just because we have not found a phenomenon or a theory that contradicts a
particular theory, however long it is uncontested for, does not make it
logically absolute. Scientific theories are constantly changing. Just
because the sun has risen every day for the past zillion years, does not
logically guarantee that it will rise tomorrow.

> However you are in even more of a tangle than a
> misunderstanding of the relationship between Newtonian
> and Quantum physics, because your reference to named
> theories , whether it be Newtonian Physics, Quantum
> Mechanics or your putative future theory , contains an
> implicit acceptance that one or the other is closer to
> the truth - which truth of course you want to deny
> exists.

Why does it contain implicit acceptance? Just because we have more
explanations for things, does not mean that you are closer to the truth. How
can you prove that? What if what you call "the truth" is behind you, not in
front of you? And you have been building a whole army of explanations in the
wrong direction, as it often happens with criminal investigations?

> I utterly reject the assertion that "Racism is in all
> of us. It is in you and it is in me"

Prejudice is a matter of degree. Everyone is prejudiced to a degree. Can you
claim that you are absolutely free of prejudices? If so, I guess you are an
exception.

One day when I was visiting my friend at his apartment, I was carrying a
plastic bag full of take out food. At the front entrance of his apartment
building, I pressed his buzzer, but he did not respond for a while. An old
lady came up to the door and looked at me suspiciously, and asked, "Which
apartment are you delivering it to?" Since I am Asian (Oriental) and Chinese
food delivery is popular in the US, it is an understandable confusion, but
if a blonde white girl was carrying the same bag, I doubt that she would
have asked the same question. This is racism, a form of prejudice. We
unconsciously engage in this type of offenses all the time. When people
focus on criticizing other people for being racists, they tend to look away
from their own racism inside.

This is the sort of racism I was speaking of.

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Joseph,

Your question:
"You will have to explain to me the degrees of neutrality for this I do not
comprehend. I would expect an actual state of neutrality to be a state where
success/failure, pro/con, yes/no, for/against does not exist."

I did give several examples of this. (e.g. Halle Berry and hermaphrodites)
With respect to my own stance for Iraq, the only binary pair that I am
neutral to is for/against. This neutrality is a result of my careful
consideration of the merits and demerits of the war, but of course this is
limited by my knowledge and understanding of the situation. All the
arguments that many people on this list have expressed against the war has
been taken into consideration, and they have influenced my position to a
degree. But there are also arguments for the war in order to counter the
violence that Saddam inflicts on the people of Iraq. I agree with many that
this is only an excuse for Bush to go to war when in fact his main motive is
oil. However, independent of Bush's motive, the facts still exist for the
need of a humanitarian intervention. I am not completely convinced that
despots such as Hitler could have been countered by non-violent measures.

If what they are telling us about what Saddam is doing to his people are
true (various tortures and threats) then I sincerely feel for them. How many
more people must he torture and kill before we do something about it? My
concern for this isn't about who is more evil. The US has been, and probably
still is, involved in evil deeds. Some may view it as just as evil as Iraq,
but that is a separate issue we need to discuss. What we do with Iraq is the
topic of discussion here. And, my honest answer is: I don't know, since the
pros and the cons seem to balance each other out. If this offends some
people, all I can say is that I'm sorry.

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


> OK - you are asking Michael to take it easy at the same time as saying that
> Tony Blair knows what's going on - so what if he does. Does that mean that one
> (or many) are to blindly assume that he has our best interests at heart?
> Er...pull the other one it has bombs on it.

Hi Marc, Jess, and Michael,

Sounds like I got myself into trouble. Right now, I don't have time to
respond to all the points raised by you all, but one thing I do have to
clarify, since many of you seem to have misunderstood my statement.

I am not in any way in support of Tony Blair and George Bush making
unilateral decision on the war. All I meant to say was that if you went by
the logic of "the truth" (which I DO NOT), it would make sense that you let
someone who knows better rule the world. I am absolutely against this. I
value everyone's opinions equally, precisely because I believe that there is
nothing more than interpretations, and no such thing as "the truth".

So, all those things that you wrote in response to this misunderstanding,
I'm in agreement with. I am disgusted by American arrogance myself. I'm
disgusted by American double-standards. In fact I feel depressed every time
I see Bush on TV, especially tonight with the state of the union speech.

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.

Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


Hi Michael,

Little by little, I would like to respond to some of the points raised in
response to my post.

> What is absent from your argument is any notion that
> the driving force of history is not the ideas of
> clever people ( and the clever person almost always
> seems to be the one putting the argument) but the
> material circumstances under which human beings labour
> in the world to sustain and reproduce life in order
> that anyone has time to philosophise.

This notion is not absent in my argument. In fact, it is the point of my
argument. My "all are interpretations" justifies everyone to act on their
own beliefs regardless of the amount of knowledge, education, and
intelligence. In the end, I believe that the inherent good of the humanity
will prevail. If you could not believe in the fundamental good of the
humanity, that is, if the humanity as a whole was evil, then we might as
well go extinct. Our trust in the good of the humanity will eventually work
itself out, and part of that process is for each and every one of us to act
on his/her own belief.

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.

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