Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? - Page 36







Post#876 at 10-04-2001 02:11 PM by Blueboy [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 2]
---
10-04-2001, 02:11 PM #876
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
2

Hey Delsyn, Ken Wilber wants his ideas back.







Post#877 at 10-04-2001 02:59 PM by Blueboy [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 2]
---
10-04-2001, 02:59 PM #877
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
2

Hey Delsyn, Ken Wilber says he wants his ideas back.
Dancing with Buddahs







Post#878 at 10-04-2001 03:03 PM by Delsyn [at New York, NY joined Jul 2001 #posts 65]
---
10-04-2001, 03:03 PM #878
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
New York, NY
Posts
65

On 2001-10-04 12:11, Blueboy wrote:
Hey Delsyn, Ken Wilber wants his ideas back.
Who's Ken Wilber? Does he have a Web site?







Post#879 at 10-04-2001 06:15 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
10-04-2001, 06:15 PM #879
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

OK, just call me Joe Waffler :smile:

I?m beginning to wonder if we are still in a 3T after all, if Mr. Lamb and others are correct in their belief that the recent terrorist attack was the 3T climax rather than the 4T catalyst (or even an immediate precursor to it).

Why? It has occurred to me over the last few days that although the societal mood hasn?t quite switched back to what it was before the 9/11 tragedy, it is getting there?and fast. Three weeks after the attack, there is no longer a sense that our entire way of life, and our survival as a nation, is in true jeopardy. Rather, it feels like government at the local, state and Federal levels have (or soon will have) everything under control. The stock market is bouncing back, slowly but steadily. And just this morning, the N.Y. Times printed on its front page, an article that suggests people are returning to their old tastes in entertainment even faster than was expected.

In foreign policy, the Bush Administration is backing away from its fateful-lightning fervor of September 12, pursuing instead a quintessential 3T, Gulf War-style solution to the terrorist threat. They have stopped just short of calling for the utter removal and destruction of the Taliban, and are focusing on damage control, restorative and preventative measures. America?s goals now appear to be immediate and limited: 1) Kill Bin Laden and his inner circle; 2) bankrupt his terrorist network; and 3) secure our borders; in order to 4) prevent future attacks; and 5) enjoy Disney World and move on with our lives. If that turns out to require a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan, I don?t doubt that President Bush will do it, however if this were a 4T he?d surely have already done so.

Meanwhile, on the home front?.in the immediate wake of 9/11, I had become very inclined to stay here in Flyover Country, 20 minutes away from my parents, and make the best of things in my rushed-into, less-than-satisfying marriage (e.g. circle the wagons, batten down the hatches, or whatever other metaphor might apply). Now I?m torn between doing the aforementioned (out of guilt, for the most part), and getting the hell out of the Red Zone as fast as my little legs can carry me back to Seattle.

Assuming that I?m a typical ?Joneser?, it would seem that neither the Boomers nor Xers ? the two generations I straddle?are quite ready for prime time as far as a full-blown Fourth Turning Crisis is concerned. I believe that, deep inside, many or most of us still yearn for a few more years of Unravelling-era individualism. Why else would the President?s less-than-Prophetic response to 9/11 feel so much like the right way to go? (even as we proudly wave our flags and scream ?nuke ?em? at anything even remotely Middle Eastern?)

?BUT, as someone else here on this thread has mentioned, all bets are off should there indeed be another terrorist attack in the near future.







Post#880 at 10-04-2001 08:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-04-2001, 08:37 PM #880
Guest

Kevin, I don't think it's over. Remember, S&H even said that following the catalyst, things might appear to calm down and "get back to normal" for a while. But this is deceiving. You get a false sense of security, and then, BAM! the sh*t hits the fan again. I have no doubt that there may be another terrorist attack, probably when bin Laden and his cronies perceive us to be feeling nice and safe again. That's the best time to attack, when we can be caught off guard. It will also take a different form; next time it will probably be biological weapons--a much quieter and sneaky way to bring us down--and far more devastating.

This time we must be better prepared. I don't see us returning to a 3T mindset as a nation; we can't now. Sure, there will be individual instances of 3T-ness, and will be for awhile. People don't let go of their tastes and habits overnight, and this is no exception. Besides, like I've said before, even early winter has days that seem more like fall.







Post#881 at 10-04-2001 09:17 PM by bcoffey [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 2]
---
10-04-2001, 09:17 PM #881
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
2

Susan writes: Sure, there will be individual instances of 3T-ness, and will be for awhile.


I think that's a key thought. The "center of gravity" is moving from 3T to 4T. There will always be preseasonal (early 4T) and postseasonal (late 3T) people in the group, but we need to watch the center of gravity.



In the past three weeks I've done a lot of traveling - 20 states... rural areas, big cities, all over. The "center" hasn't coalesced quite yet, but I think it's getting there.







Post#882 at 10-04-2001 10:36 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
10-04-2001, 10:36 PM #882
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

On 2001-10-04 19:17, bcoffey wrote:
I think that's a key thought. The "center of gravity" is moving from 3T to 4T. There will always be preseasonal (early 4T) and postseasonal (late 3T) people in the group, but we need to watch the center of gravity.

In the past three weeks I've done a lot of traveling - 20 states... rural areas, big cities, all over. The "center" hasn't coalesced quite yet, but I think it's getting there.
Thanks, bcoffey. I've been sensing that I needed something to define this transition process we're in while recognizing that some people might not be moving as fast or as slow as others, and your "center of gravity" metaphor is perfect. Good thinking!

Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#883 at 10-04-2001 11:43 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
10-04-2001, 11:43 PM #883
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412


On 2001-09-27 21:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

The Baron, a Hero? What is your basis for that assessment? Somehow he always struck me more as the very worst sort of Nomad/Reactive, the type that reacts by making himself the absolute center of the universe.
Why was the Baron a Hero? Consider the Baron's ultimate goals - he wasn't out to claim power merely for himself, indeed, throughout the book he points out that he very likely will NOT be able to become Emperor himself, rather he will have to settle for being the power behind the throne for Emperor Feyd-Rautha - the progenitor of a long dynasty of Harkonnen Emperors.
Hmm...yes, but it's interesting to look at why he was doing it. He knew he could not become Emperor on a practical level, he was too old, too reviled, and would have made too big (not a fat joke) a target. Hence, his charming nephew Feyd-Rautha gets the nod.

However, it's not out of love, or even caring for his family. Feyd is the Baron's puppet, or intended to be, though on some level the Baron suspects that Feyd means to off him once he gains the Throne. Remember, the Baron was, among other nasty things, a pedophile, and Feyd was one of his early victims. I suspect that the Baron on some unconscious level didn't even distinguish between himself and Feyd, seeing Feyd as an extension of himself like a limb.

(It's really not all that surprising that Feyd turned out the way he did, having come from the Harkonnen genetic line and being raised by the Baron. It's interesting to remember that Paul and Feyd are close relatives, too. Paul even looked into the future and saw one possible time line where he allied himself with the Baron, and became a monster himself.)


The Baron sought to re-build society in the image, not of himself, but along the perverted Darwinian principles that his family and his planet espoused. In his own mind, he was doing what was right for the universe, attempting to build a new society where they strong take their rightful place - as overlords and predators among the weak.

I thought of something else, too. Suppose the generational cycle went on throughout Leto's Peace, all those thousands of years. Every lifetime or so, a Prophet generation would come along.

I guess what I'm asking is what the reaction would be if a Prophet generation rose up for its Awakening, bounced, and knew that no matter how hard they tried, they could NEVER overcome the Establishment, that it would outlast them to the last member. I wonder what the generational reaction would be?
I thought about this too. It seems to me that what Leto was doing was holding humanity in a transitional moment for untold thousands of years between Paul's Awakening and the inevitable Unravelling (Imagine if 1975 had lasted for 4,000 years). Basically, Paul's Awakening was so disastrous, had unleashed forces of such magnitude, that Leto knew that shifting too fast into an disastrous Unravelling would result in the end of the human race. Leto's Peace and his actions allowed him to shape and guide the forces of the Awakening and prepare humanity for an Unravelling that would be positive for humanity - and it was, it resulted in the Scattering, where humanity finally left our home galaxy.
True, at one point Leto the Younger, with rather grim humor, muses that: "Hah! I give them a peace which plods on and on, no matter how hard they try to escape into chaos." Those were almost his exact words. I'm not sure there were no Idealists, though...if Leto was a Nomad at heart, I can imagine him being in just such a humor at the thought of boxing an Awakening up in an eternal 1T (that's how it would seem to the Idealists, I think) and keeping it locked away, leaving those annoying Prophets to squirm helplessly.


Leto's Peace is much like the four or five years of shifting seasons I believe we are in now as our Thid Turning turns to a Fourth. Humans need that transition time to settle the old argumants of the previous turning and begin framing the questions and challenges that face them in the next. We didn't just magically go to bed on December 31, 1975 in Love Beads and wake up on January 1, 1976 in disco shoes -it took time. After 911, we're not just going to trade in our Gucci loafers for combat boots in a day or a week - but trade them in we will.

As for the individual generations who lived under Leto's Peace, I would imagine that in essence there were no generations during that time period - as time was essentially frozen. If you remember, Leto channelled generational passions into unchanging clockwork institutions he controlled: The Bene Gesserit (Heroes), Ix and the Fish Speakers (Artists), The Museum Fremen (Prophets), and the general populace (Nomads forever waiting for their Unravelling). Upon Leto's death, time started moving forward again and I would imagine each of those institutions filled their necessary generational roles until enough time had passed that real generations were once again born.

Interestingly, the Dune books eerily presage our own era, as Herbert's books detail an intrafaith struggle in which different factions of a futuristic Muslim society attempt to wrest dominance from one another in an attempt to steer the future of that society, rather like what seems to be happening in the Islamic world now. Even the descriptions and actions of the Tlielaxu are remarkably close to those of the Taliban (though I believe the Tlielaxu are Sufi and the Taliban are Sunni).
Now that's interesting. I've seen similar thoughts posted on science fiction forums. There have also been nervous speculations among Dune fans to the effect that the Fremen of Arrakis probably looked about as helpless to the Empire, just before Paul's Jihad, as the Taliban and the other Fundamentalist Moslems look to the West now. I'm not suggeting anything, just making the comparison.









Post#884 at 10-05-2001 10:24 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-05-2001, 10:24 AM #884
Guest

Well, I was surprised that so many thought that questioning why the Taliban did this act was not appropriate to this website (as if Dune, a fantasy novel and movie is more attune to the times). Actually I like Dune, but the point should be to look at real events in history and see how they play out in the future.

I quote from another contributer:

how would we as americans feel if it seemed that some outside superpower was preventing us from having the kind of
government that we wanted and instead was propping up some oppressive dictatorship or monarchy? or allow an outside group
of people to come in, dispossess other americans from their land in the name of God, without compensation of any sort, and then
use that power to keep us from taking back our land? would we not want to strike back, using any means necessary, as well?
did we not actually do this when we broke away from england and began our own revolution back in the 18th century? i would
suggest that the british government considered our own founding fathers to be terrorists at the time as well.

No Kidding. And we may see all the cast of future players, such as Benedict Arnold George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. All this will unfold.

My point is that perhaps, in the past, a crisis is better handled when you are armed with the best weapon, knowledge!

For it is said that during war, truth is the first casualty.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:30 ]</font>







Post#885 at 10-05-2001 11:26 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
10-05-2001, 11:26 AM #885
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

On 2001-10-04 21:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-09-27 21:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

The Baron, a Hero? What is your basis for that assessment? Somehow he always struck me more as the very worst sort of Nomad/Reactive, the type that reacts by making himself the absolute center of the universe.
Why was the Baron a Hero? Consider the Baron's ultimate goals - he wasn't out to claim power merely for himself, indeed, throughout the book he points out that he very likely will NOT be able to become Emperor himself, rather he will have to settle for being the power behind the throne for Emperor Feyd-Rautha - the progenitor of a long dynasty of Harkonnen Emperors.
Hmm...yes, but it's interesting to look at why he was doing it. He knew he could not become Emperor on a practical level, he was too old, too reviled, and would have made too big (not a fat joke) a target. Hence, his charming nephew Feyd-Rautha gets the nod.

However, it's not out of love, or even caring for his family. Feyd is the Baron's puppet, or intended to be, though on some level the Baron suspects that Feyd means to off him once he gains the Throne. Remember, the Baron was, among other nasty things, a pedophile, and Feyd was one of his early victims. I suspect that the Baron on some unconscious level didn't even distinguish between himself and Feyd, seeing Feyd as an extension of himself like a limb.

(It's really not all that surprising that Feyd turned out the way he did, having come from the Harkonnen genetic line and being raised by the Baron. It's interesting to remember that Paul and Feyd are close relatives, too. Paul even looked into the future and saw one possible time line where he allied himself with the Baron, and became a monster himself.)


The Baron sought to re-build society in the image, not of himself, but along the perverted Darwinian principles that his family and his planet espoused. In his own mind, he was doing what was right for the universe, attempting to build a new society where they strong take their rightful place - as overlords and predators among the weak.

I thought of something else, too. Suppose the generational cycle went on throughout Leto's Peace, all those thousands of years. Every lifetime or so, a Prophet generation would come along.

I guess what I'm asking is what the reaction would be if a Prophet generation rose up for its Awakening, bounced, and knew that no matter how hard they tried, they could NEVER overcome the Establishment, that it would outlast them to the last member. I wonder what the generational reaction would be?
I thought about this too. It seems to me that what Leto was doing was holding humanity in a transitional moment for untold thousands of years between Paul's Awakening and the inevitable Unravelling (Imagine if 1975 had lasted for 4,000 years). Basically, Paul's Awakening was so disastrous, had unleashed forces of such magnitude, that Leto knew that shifting too fast into an disastrous Unravelling would result in the end of the human race. Leto's Peace and his actions allowed him to shape and guide the forces of the Awakening and prepare humanity for an Unravelling that would be positive for humanity - and it was, it resulted in the Scattering, where humanity finally left our home galaxy.
True, at one point Leto the Younger, with rather grim humor, muses that: "Hah! I give them a peace which plods on and on, no matter how hard they try to escape into chaos." Those were almost his exact words. I'm not sure there were no Idealists, though...if Leto was a Nomad at heart, I can imagine him being in just such a humor at the thought of boxing an Awakening up in an eternal 1T (that's how it would seem to the Idealists, I think) and keeping it locked away, leaving those annoying Prophets to squirm helplessly.


Leto's Peace is much like the four or five years of shifting seasons I believe we are in now as our Thid Turning turns to a Fourth. Humans need that transition time to settle the old argumants of the previous turning and begin framing the questions and challenges that face them in the next. We didn't just magically go to bed on December 31, 1975 in Love Beads and wake up on January 1, 1976 in disco shoes -it took time. After 911, we're not just going to trade in our Gucci loafers for combat boots in a day or a week - but trade them in we will.

As for the individual generations who lived under Leto's Peace, I would imagine that in essence there were no generations during that time period - as time was essentially frozen. If you remember, Leto channelled generational passions into unchanging clockwork institutions he controlled: The Bene Gesserit (Heroes), Ix and the Fish Speakers (Artists), The Museum Fremen (Prophets), and the general populace (Nomads forever waiting for their Unravelling). Upon Leto's death, time started moving forward again and I would imagine each of those institutions filled their necessary generational roles until enough time had passed that real generations were once again born.

Interestingly, the Dune books eerily presage our own era, as Herbert's books detail an intrafaith struggle in which different factions of a futuristic Muslim society attempt to wrest dominance from one another in an attempt to steer the future of that society, rather like what seems to be happening in the Islamic world now. Even the descriptions and actions of the Tlielaxu are remarkably close to those of the Taliban (though I believe the Tlielaxu are Sufi and the Taliban are Sunni).
Now that's interesting. I've seen similar thoughts posted on science fiction forums. There have also been nervous speculations among Dune fans to the effect that the Fremen of Arrakis probably looked about as helpless to the Empire, just before Paul's Jihad, as the Taliban and the other Fundamentalist Moslems look to the West now. I'm not suggeting anything, just making the comparison.

Shortly after the 911, I wrote a filk (or it nagged its way out of my head) which went:
"The fans have seen Bin Laden when they watched TV last year. He was then called Paul Atreides, and they hadn't sense to fear. He was calling for a jihad; do you need to be more clear? The jihad's rolling on. Glory, glory, kill Harkonnens. Glory, glory, kill
Galactics. Glory, glory, bring the Evil Empire down... the jihad's rolling on."

To make it more chilling, the underlying tune was from the last unseasonable Crisis Era.







Post#886 at 10-05-2001 12:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-05-2001, 12:37 PM #886
Guest

On 2001-10-05 08:24, sv81 wrote:
Please read and understand what the arabs and the jews want. Its different than christians, to say the least.
SV81, by "Jews", do you mean "Israelis"? I am assuming so.

My impression is that most Israelis want what most people living in developed nations want -- a free and prosperous democracy. The rub is that their tiny country is living in a "rough neighborhood" where the surrounding countries want to wipe them off the face of this planet. In addition, you do have the ultra-orthodox, who want to turn Israel into a Hassidic theocracy. They are a small minority of Israelis, however.







Post#887 at 10-05-2001 01:23 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-05-2001, 01:23 PM #887
Guest

Jenny:
Our hosts, S & H, described at the start of this chat, a tendency in a 4T crisis for contemporaty viewpoints to become absolute; sweeping many problems into single catagories. It is with that mindset that I suggest the current turning is based on the "holy war" catagory. The media has suggested that term recently, and much more important than say, Duke Leto and the Baron, is the difference we have in this world between jews, arabs and anericans. (More appropriately: Hebrews, Islamics and Christians).
My call to arms is to know your enemy as well as yourself.
The arabs hijacked four airliners in September 1970, blowing up three of them in Jordan, and they couldn't spell out their rage any better than repeating the act, against westerners, in September 2001.
I don't condone terrorism, but there is another side to the enemy that triggers this turning.
My challenge to you is to investigate the positions of the three groups I mentioned, and use intellegence, not partoitism, nationalism or even religious faith as the measure.
Lastly, as I mentioned before, "In war, truth is the first casualty".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:32 ]</font>







Post#888 at 10-05-2001 02:57 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-05-2001, 02:57 PM #888
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Sv81 says Well, I was surprised that so many thought that questioning why the Taliban did this act was not appropriate to this website (as if Dune, a fantasy novel and movie is more attune to the times).

I was somewhat dismayed by this as well. I have come to expect from past crises a conflict between progressives attempting to update the world order to reflect new technological, economic and political realities. I expected the establishment to resist change, to cling to privilege. Instead, the conservative establishment defending the current world order is fighting a reactionary faction advocating a perverted version of a mediaeval worldview. Neither side is advocating a new world order resolving basic issues.

Logic hasn?t got much further than identifying enemies who think differently, and resolving to use force to smite said enemies. The expected short term reaction to such use of force is strengthened resolve by the victim culture, increased willingness to use force, ever increasing violence, at least until one side is convinced the war cannot be won. Neither side is anywhere near that point. If the escalation gets much higher, the ability to draft a true vision of a desirable future might be lost.

The first step to seeing the future is accepting that the present is flawed. Does this mean we need let go of our pride? Does this mean that because we are less than perfect, our enemies must be praised as heroes? No. However, we are not going to achieve Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while ignoring the forgotten three Freedoms. We can take pride in what we once were to the extent that we strive to become so again.

The current lull is not about lack of resolve. It is about logistics, deployment and intelligence. The hammer will soon fall, and fall hard. I expect, however, that both factions are using their time well. The next hammer might well be followed by another flying in the opposite direction. We might need to take a long hard look in the mirror, but mirrors give fractured images when the hammers are flying.

Perhaps the old world order needs be shattered before new visions can arise.







Post#889 at 10-05-2001 03:21 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
10-05-2001, 03:21 PM #889
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

All I was saying re: Taliban motives was that "understanding the enemy" - while a valuable thing! - is not the same as understanding ourselves. This forum, IMHO, is dedicated to understanding ourselves and the qualities and characteristics of a 4T. Perhaps one topic that would be "appropriate" (again, my opinion) is American RESPONSE to Taliban motives, or to Taliban actions. For example, here's a new article

http://www.msnbc.com/news/638369.asp

that talks about the likelihood of a terrorist action in response to a military strike. We should watch how our government and our people handle this strike. I understood its logical: if I hit you, and I don't take you out with the first blow, you're likely going to try and hit me back - whatever your motives for doing so. Now, how will I respond to that?

Are we going to worry about terrorists in our midst? Will racial profiling increase? Will some of our civil liberties be lost?

With Silents in control I don't think so... and my analysis at

http://www.justinlong.org/gen/index.php?page=summary

leads me to think, incomplete and buggy as it is even at this date, that Silents are very firmly in power still...







Post#890 at 10-05-2001 03:27 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
10-05-2001, 03:27 PM #890
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

About digital IDs

Getting to know the real you
http://www.interactiveweek.com/artic...3D15446,00.asp

Authenticate yourself
http://www.interactiveweek.com/artic...3D15356,00.asp

The fight for digital identity may be a very important one when attempting to deal with terrorists in our midst... As Toby said on West Wing, "You can't tell the bad guy on sight." So how do we identify people... track their movements, associates, etc. One way is to use technology like the fabled Echelon and Carnivore... In the context of terrorism attacks, privacy wars may be a very big thing in the 4T. But then I'm rehashing old stuff that I've posted before :smile:







Post#891 at 10-05-2001 04:03 PM by Delsyn [at New York, NY joined Jul 2001 #posts 65]
---
10-05-2001, 04:03 PM #891
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
New York, NY
Posts
65

SV81 -

Actually, the Dune saga is quite relevant to this discussion, though of course, you don't have to respond to any of our comments on it.

If you've read some of my previous postings you'll know that I work in the Entertainment industry and tend to view things, including history and historical analysis, through a cultural lens. Cultural output, whether dispoasable "pop" culture or more enduring "high" culture (two definitions I vigorously resist, BTW) doesn't spring from a vacuum, rather it's an important reflection of the society that creates it. Examining the feedback cycle of how a society creates it's culture and how a culture then influences it's society is a very important key in understanding both history and contemporary life.

After 911, the issue of American culture has now become more important than ever. It seems to me that the roots of our current issues with Islamic fundamentalists fall into three categories:

1. America's support for Israel - a Jewish civilization the Arabs are determined to wipe off the face of the Earth. This is an age old hatred that began with the battle of two brothers - Isaac and Ishmael - detailed in a story.

2. America's tendency to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East to ensure ourselves a steady supply of that most addictive drug - oil.

3. What is percieved as America's constant assault on fundamental Islamic values - our "decadent" pop cultural output and the American values and principles that underlie both it's content and it's very existence.

We might very well be able to solve the first two and still be hated by the Bin Ladens of the world because of the last, including some in America who agree with him in principle if not in specifics (I'm looking at you Jerry Falwell).

There's a reason that the First Amendment is the first thing listed in the bill of rights. More than anything else, that amendment defines what it is to be an American - the free exchange of ideas and the guaranteed right to hold them without fear of punishment. And while it can often be tough to live with (Lord knows I'm often nauseated by what passes for entertainment in our society - I'm looking at you producers of Fear Factor) it's also our greatest weapon against the tyrants of the world, regardless of their religious or political affiliation.

One of the pillars of America is the concept that ALL ideas are valid fodder for debate and that through debate we can come to a consensus of which are the best that need to be put into practice. That is why we allow an American Nazi party and a Ku Klux Klan to exist, even though the majority of America find their philosophies noxious. America does not police thoughts.

This concept is alien and frankly devastating to Islamic theocracy and to fundamentalist religious thought in general. Fundamentalist religious philosophy is by necessity static - after all, if God issued the edict, this is the way it must be and it can never change. In this kind of a worldview, alternative ideas on how to live aren't just wrong - they're blasphemous, they're arguing back against God's holy writ. Fundamentalist (or absolutist if you're dealing with a secular government) thought holds as a virtue the EXTERMINATION of competing ideas.

These are two modes of thought that cannot coexist. It goes back to an unfortunate truth that there are people in the world who cannot deal with the fact that others may have differeng opinions. In matters of religious thought this gets worse because validating the existence of differing points of view means that your relationship with God isn't the special and exclusive one you thought it was - once again human ego gets in the way of Divine revelation.

Examination of a cultural product can also be valuable in this context: In the case of Dune, obviously it's a fictional examination of Islam and it we shouldn't base our foreign policy on it, but one can draw things from it to illuminate and maybe even act as a launch point for the things one is trying to relay in our discussion.

As an example - let me offer this Dune quote and ask what you think it might mean for our current dealings with a fundamentalist religious minority poised to create a great deal more trouble in the world:

"You cannot avoid the interplay of politics within an orthodox religion. This power struggle permeates the training, educating and disciplining of the orthodox community. Because of this pressure, the leaders of such a community inevitably must face that ultimate internal question: to succumb to complete opportunism as the price of maintaining their rule, or risk sacrificing themselves for the sake of the orthodox ethic.
"Muad'Dib: The Religious Issues" by the Princess Irulan
Dune"








Post#892 at 10-05-2001 04:13 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-05-2001, 04:13 PM #892
Guest

On 2001-10-05 11:23, sv81 wrote:
Jenny:
Yes, by Jews, I do mean the Israelis. Israel is a jewish state, and no, they don't believe in the same democracy that you suggest. Israel is perhaps the most ethnocentric nation in the world. Do the research, you will find that individual rights, such as the ability to own property, immigrate or paticipate in government service is strictly based in nondemocratic principles.
Clearly the arabs do not need me to fight their battles, for more bodies have fallen in the middle east than I have ever seen. They however have knowledge of the Talmud, and with it, an awareness that their people are an abomination to the hebrew god. There is little question that they hate that position.
A couple of things. Arab citizens of Israel have the right to vote in Israel and even serve in the Knesset, which is their parliament. They have a heck of a lot more rights then they do in your typical Middle-Eastern state (such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc...)

Again, I'd like to reiterate my point, which is that most Israelis do not hold the fundamentalist positions held by very extreme Orthodox Jews.

Unfortunately, because of the way their parliamentary system is structured, and because of the deep division between Labor and Likud, neither of the two main parties can get enough members elected without appealing to the religious parties, which tend to toe the line of Jewish Orthodoxy. Hence some of the problems like the inability to get a secular marriage in Israel, etc...

I repeat, most Jews don't believe that Arabs are an abomination. They just wish that their Arab neighboring states would leave them alone and stop car-bombing people in night clubs.







Post#893 at 10-05-2001 04:26 PM by jeffw [at Orange County, CA--dob 1961 joined Jul 2001 #posts 417]
---
10-05-2001, 04:26 PM #893
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Orange County, CA--dob 1961
Posts
417

On 2001-10-05 08:24, sv81 wrote:
Well, I was surprised that so many thought that questioning why the Taliban did this act was not appropriate to this website (as if Dune, a fantasy novel and movie is more attune to the times). Actually I like Dune, but the point should be to look at real events in history and see how they play out in the future.
Someone made the statement that you were off topic in this forum, but he was refering to this thread, as could be discerned by what he thought the topic should be limited to. No one has said that question you posed was inappropriate for this website.







Post#894 at 10-05-2001 04:46 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
10-05-2001, 04:46 PM #894
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

Delsyn,
have you read "Virtual Faith"? I forget who its by but it refers to S&H and talks about how 13ers tend to express their religion through their culture. FAscinating book. I haven't read it all the way through yet, but what I've read is very intriguing.

Justin







Post#895 at 10-05-2001 04:47 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-05-2001, 04:47 PM #895
Guest

Delsyn:

I need to apologize for being so confused. Was I to understand that the quote from Dune, concerning the minority faction of radical fundamentalist who saw their position, vis-a-vis god, to demand a rigorous and inflexible condemnation of others - to pertained in our modern world to Islam or Israel? In both instances, (with Dune as a third), the fundamentalist faction is unwilling to compromise with outsiders. Dune though was written in 1965, and Frank Herbert is dead. On the other hand, U.S. foreign policy, (which has spent more than Dune ever grossed), marches on in spite of, or in furtherance to, the wholesale ignorance of its citizens.

I didn't want to offend anybody by saying that the multigenerational ramifictions of Dune don't make great parallels with historical fact, The Fourth Turning or current national policies. However, the middle east is real, Dune isn't. Although it's award winning writing, we don't need to resort to a fictional history 10,000 years in the future to draw analogy with world events that have and continue to unfold.

Additionally, to the extent that Dune is fiction, crafted by one brillant mind, it may lack the dynamic of society. That is, it may be lucid because is wasn't written by committee, but real history, from the near past, and the near future, is written by masses of people, not individual authors.

Someone dozens of pages ago on this site stated "We can differ on the interpretations, but we all share the same facts.

Dune doesn't have any facts.

The history of Arabia, Egypt, Nazi Germany, with the six million killed under that regime, and the 30 million killed under the soviet regime; now, there's some facts!

Critique of my contributions seems 50% favorable as topical, for understanding foreign policy in light of past events has a direct tie in with 3T and 4T analysis, and they agree that knowledge is power. The other 50% or so believe the postings shouldn't get cluttered up with "differences of opinion" on controversial issues, such as who we may kill next week in Afganistan.
I harbor no ill will toward any nation, even those on planets we haven't visited yet. But come on, as the greatest superpower on this planet rockets toward its rendevous with destiny, I'd like to think somebody is behind the wheel.







Post#896 at 10-05-2001 06:06 PM by Delsyn [at New York, NY joined Jul 2001 #posts 65]
---
10-05-2001, 06:06 PM #896
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
New York, NY
Posts
65

On 2001-10-05 14:47, sv81 wrote:
Delsyn:

Dune doesn't have any facts.
Entirely true - Dune is fiction, created whole cloth out of the mind of one man. However, great truths often lie buried in fiction - as they are the result of how a society or a segment of society views itself. Thus, when we discuss how we will react to the events of 911, it's vital that we understand ourselves and the psychological underpinnings that make us what we are. Those values and experiences are what will dictate those reactions.

If, for example, we were to discuss how Generation X will handle itself during the coming crisis, it is entirely appropriate to pull in elements or examples from the movie "Three Kings" as indicative of the way that generation views the issue of the Gulf War and war in general. You might agree or disagree with the conclusions that I draw from that example, but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the example. You may even want to pull in an example from another movie to refute my claim.

You seem to be approaching this discussion as though human beings are rational and do things dictated only by facts that can be verified as objective reality. This is false. Facts are important, to be sure, but much of the way we (and by "we" I mean all of us, the whole human race) view the world is colored by our beliefs - by the stories we tell ourselves and each other. Again, one of the things at contention in this conflict is the fact the many fundamentalist Muslims percieve their culture as under attack by one that they view as decadent and sinful. If we are to be asked to shed our precious blood in defense of our culture, our "way of life", it behooves us to critically examine it and examine what role it played in getting us into this mess and how it will help get us out of it.

Critique of my contributions seems 50% favorable as topical, for understanding foreign policy in light of past events has a direct tie in with 3T and 4T analysis, and they agree that knowledge is power. The other 50% or so believe the postings shouldn't get cluttered up with "differences of opinion" on controversial issues, such as who we may kill next week in Afganistan.
I harbor no ill will toward any nation, even those on planets we haven't visited yet. But come on, as the greatest superpower on this planet rockets toward its rendevous with destiny, I'd like to think somebody is behind the wheel.
For what it's worth - I don't criticize the value of your contributions. I may disagree with you on certain things, such as the value of fictional examples in a real-world discussion, but anyone who contributes to a discussion in such a way as to make people think is a valuable addition in my book. That's one of the reasons I cherish this site - it's genuinely nice to have honest disagreements with people that don't degenerate into "You suck!".

And I also hope somebody's behind the wheel.







Post#897 at 10-05-2001 07:43 PM by enjolras [at Santa Barbara, CA joined Sep 2001 #posts 174]
---
10-05-2001, 07:43 PM #897
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Posts
174

i think this question of just what is a "terrorist" is a very important one.

were native americans "terrorists" for conducting raids against early settlers when the felt they were stealing their land away from them? were they "terrorists" when they struck back against u.s. forts and soldiers, in often extremely savage ways, because they felt the u.s. government was breaking treaties with them?

was the french resistance a terrorist organization during world war II because it covertly bombed, sabotaged or attacked german installations causing the loss of property and life among both the military and sometimes civilians?

fidel castro, mao tse-tung, lenin and stalin were probably all considered terrorists at one time or another yet they went on to become heads of state. and the tactics they took to gain power were not exactly non-violent.

is what these islamic terrorists today are doing really that different from what geronimo, sitting bull, crazy horse, etc. did against the u.s. government and its people in the past when they felt their people had been grievously wronged but that no one would listen? and isn't it really true that the only real difference is in the potency of the weapons used?

personally, i support israel's right to exist. but then i am not an arab or a palestinian who had his family unceremoniously kicked out of their homes and land because someone else said that God told them to.

as an american, i am horrified by these acts of terrorism perpetrated by radical islamic extremists. but then i am not a poor and often hungry person in the muslim world who feels powerless to change the direction of my own government or life or to make things better for the lives of my children because some outside superpower wants to prop up some corrupt monarchy or dictatorship in order to insure the free flow of oil.

radical marxism grew so greatly in popularity in the early 20th century because it offered the poor and dispossessed an opportunity to feel like they had control over their lives again. it gave them hope at the time that their lives and the lives of their children just might be better than theirs. it gave them the hope that they and their children might not have to go hungry anymore and that the injustices they had suffered just might be righted at last. and it was for this kind of hope,feeling of power and yearning for justice that they were willing to die in large numbers for during the various socialist revolutions of the 20th century.

radical islam, despite all its faults, possesses this same basic appeal for the poor and dispossessed peoples of the muslim world. and this is why it is so very, very dangerous. these people are just as willing to die for that same kind of hope, feeling of power and yearning for justice that radical marxism offered to people in the 20th century.

we can debate amongst ourselves until we are blue in the face over all the shortcomings of radical islam and its tactics. but until we come to understand it and figure out a way to deal with it that offers the same kind of hope to those people that it offers, the destructive potential of it will hang over our heads like the proverbial sword of damocles for decades to come and may well, in the end, prove to be the true source of this nation's undoing.

as i have said before, every other crisis period tends to carry with it religious overtones within the nature of the conflict. how can we possibly not consider strongly that radical islam, which hold the same type of appeal as radical marxism did, holds within it the strong potential to eventually engulf both the united states, and the entire world, in an eventual "holy war" that shifts the balance of power for centuries to come?





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-10-05 18:02 ]</font>







Post#898 at 10-05-2001 09:24 PM by Chuck59 [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1]
---
10-05-2001, 09:24 PM #898
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1

I've been reading various postings since the attack, and what Susan says strikes me as telling it like it is. In the past week the Pledge of Allegiance has been recited at both my local Bar Association's meeting and at my daughter's Back to School night-both firsts. I can't picture that happening before 9/11.







Post#899 at 10-05-2001 10:37 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
10-05-2001, 10:37 PM #899
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2001-10-05 16:06, Delsyn wrote:
On 2001-10-05 14:47, sv81 wrote:
Delsyn:

Dune doesn't have any facts.
Entirely true - Dune is fiction, created whole cloth out of the mind of one man. However, great truths often lie buried in fiction - as they are the result of how a society or a segment of society views itself. Thus, when we discuss how we will react to the events of 911, it's vital that we understand ourselves and the psychological underpinnings that make us what we are. Those values and experiences are what will dictate those reactions.

If, for example, we were to discuss how Generation X will handle itself during the coming crisis, it is entirely appropriate to pull in elements or examples from the movie "Three Kings" as indicative of the way that generation views the issue of the Gulf War and war in general. You might agree or disagree with the conclusions that I draw from that example, but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the example. You may even want to pull in an example from another movie to refute my claim.

You seem to be approaching this discussion as though human beings are rational and do things dictated only by facts that can be verified as objective reality. This is false. Facts are important, to be sure, but much of the way we (and by "we" I mean all of us, the whole human race) view the world is colored by our beliefs - by the stories we tell ourselves and each other. Again, one of the things at contention in this conflict is the fact the many fundamentalist Muslims percieve their culture as under attack by one that they view as decadent and sinful. If we are to be asked to shed our precious blood in defense of our culture, our "way of life", it behooves us to critically examine it and examine what role it played in getting us into this mess and how it will help get us out of it.
Or our cultures, plural.


Critique of my contributions seems 50% favorable as topical, for understanding foreign policy in light of past events has a direct tie in with 3T and 4T analysis, and they agree that knowledge is power. The other 50% or so believe the postings shouldn't get cluttered up with "differences of opinion" on controversial issues, such as who we may kill next week in Afganistan.
I harbor no ill will toward any nation, even those on planets we haven't visited yet. But come on, as the greatest superpower on this planet rockets toward its rendevous with destiny, I'd like to think somebody is behind the wheel.
For what it's worth - I don't criticize the value of your contributions. I may disagree with you on certain things, such as the value of fictional examples in a real-world discussion, but anyone who contributes to a discussion in such a way as to make people think is a valuable addition in my book. That's one of the reasons I cherish this site - it's genuinely nice to have honest disagreements with people that don't degenerate into "You suck!".

And I also hope somebody's behind the wheel.
Nobody is behind the wheel. That's the whole essence of the late 3T, and even if we are in early 4T, we're not far enough into it yet that anybody can be said to be in control of anything.

For that matter, I would submit that even in late 4T periods, the perception of control on the part of the Gray Champion just might be an illusion.

As for Dune, the discussion started out when it was pointed out that Dune was a good indicator as a symptom of the oncoming 2T in the physical, real world.

This probably isn't the best particular forum for that discussion, though. I've set up another forum in the Culture and Values area, for duscission of science fiction as it applies to the cycle.

It does, I am convinced, because what a culture's people see in their future tells us something about the real-world present they inhabit.







Post#900 at 10-06-2001 01:02 AM by pjscott [at Pacific NW joined Sep 2001 #posts 8]
---
10-06-2001, 01:02 AM #900
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Pacific NW
Posts
8

Another strange sighting from the front: Martha Stewart's show tonight (my wife got sucked into the cult earlier this year and I can't avoid it) featured a field trip to a flag factory, a demonstration of flag folding, a discourse on the Bald Eagle (complete with injured model), and a recipe for cookies decorated with stars and stripes. I'm waiting for the episode that shows how to make your own antibiotics and personalized gas mask.

This ranks up there with the WWF show on the 12th or so (I was channel surfing, honest) with the stars grunting out expressions of patriotism.

Today I also caught a guest on Larry King opining that we should expect more attacks because the government let us down before and therefore we should expect it will let us down again.

I get about 20 different computer industry trade magazines. Every one of them has sprouted a US flag since 9/11.

Here's the kicker for me as to why this isn't going to be over soon, or without triggering bigger crises: The membership of the enemy is impossible to define, and they will never give up. Unlike WWII, when the moment you defeat the enemy they surrender, cease fire, and ask if they can have foreign aid, this enemy is going to fight forever. The US will have to imprison or kill every member of Al'Queda, and then the terrorists will just join another club. The US will have no choice but to understand why people hate them so much to do this, and figure out how to manage its image to prevent it. We're a long way from that point.
-----------------------------------------