[MD] The Greeks?

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Matt, well argued ...

I only used "side with" in the context of a specific argument.
Using the hypothetical Bush example ... I could support a specific
wise argument of Bush without supporting (siding with) any strategic
positioning of Bush arguments in general.

So even supporting an immediate operational / tactical decision, the
question of "how" to support it is coloured by the wider rhetorical /
strategic decision - clearly. That's everyday life surely - every
decision, every day ?

(However again not sure why you would suggest US presidents are some
US "local difficulty" - these are balanced tactical and strategic
decisions we all have to make every day about the actions and words of
US presidents, senators and representatives, whether we are US
citizens or not. Suspect you emphasised the "US context" rather than
just the tactical question ... and set me off on the wrong tack ...
initially, which I said I suspected was the case ... it didn't seem
like you to make such a point.)

Ian

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt said:
> Spoken like someone that doesn't have to vote in the
> United States.  (Which is to say, think strategically--i.e.
> rhetorically--in this political environment.)
>
> Ian said:
> Spoken like a US citizen who thinks the US is somehow
> supremely different to everywhere else. You think the
> politics of governance in Europe or Asia doesn't have
> personal, rhetorical, tactical and strategic aspects, static
> and dynamic aspects, economic and moral aspects .... etc ?
>
> Matt:
> Heh, no, I meant you have the virtue of not having to
> think strategically about US politics because you are an
> outsider to that extent.  Having what they sometimes call
> "perspective" can help, giving one a less charged view of
> situation.
>
> You said you aren't prejudiced who you side with so long
> as they talk wisdom in--and this is the important bit for our
> conversation--response to me asking, "Why would you side
> with George W. Bush?"
>
> Now, unless one took a big, cosmic,
> external-to-the-political-scene view of the world (which
> one can afford if you have no stake in the outcome of
> debates), the idea of "sides" has more relevancy to the
> strategy of effecting change than your comment illustrates.
> I could admit Bush said something smart, but I wouldn't
> side with him (unless something radical happened to his
> positioning on the political map).  And your response to my
> rhetorical question implies to a certain extent that
> someone who considers "sides" is being prejudiced (and I'm
> guessing in a pernicious sense, not the Gadamerian sense).
>
> If you would stick to that view, that I'm prejudiced to that
> extent, then I can't help but think that you're being
> unstrategic and unrealistic.  In the US political landscape
> these days (I don't know what other electoral situations
> around the world look like), some people thump the table
> and yell (it's always yelling for some reason...), "I listen to
> my own reason and my own heart!  I don't listen to the
> political machines!  I don't think stra-te-gic-ally!  I'm an
> Independant!"  What these people are, however, are
> pawns in a game that, ipso facto by not thinking
> strategically, they've renounced playing.  They think they
> have greater freedom to think, but they don't realize it's
> at the cost of less power for getting what you think in
> action.  They don't realize that the power of thinking is
> that it's in your goddamn head and no one's figured out
> how to control that yet, so you always have that
> freedom, and the real question is about power and efficacy.
>
> I wish we didn't need to think strategically, which is a
> parallel to wishing we didn't need violence.  But as long as
> we do, it doesn't help to shut your eyes to that fact
> (though it also doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards
> that scenario--we just need to do it stra-te-gic-ally).
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>