Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:29:54 +0000
Subject: Re: gulf


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3130928994_741330_MIME_Part

Anthony wrote:

> michaelP wrote:
 
>> Interestingly, an abyssal failure looms, faced with the 'current
>> situation',
>> when a dismal numbers game shows its face or an opinionated chat concerning
>> 'justification' (or not) arises and rambles on, but, worse than any of this
>> (although not unexpected) is the awful gulf that exists in popular parlance
>> between 'action' (read: a continuous destructive ruthless violent
>> bombardment) and '(continued) diplomacy' (read: incessant compromising
>> 'high-level' chat), such that the one is the so-called 'only' alternative
>> to
>> the other; this 'either/or' is a conflict between a 'war' and a 'peace' but
>> does not come from peace as the non-conflictual no-taking of no-sides that
>> would be the being a-side, the third way (the neither/nor of 'peace'
>> {diplomacy} and 'war' {bombardment}) towards a peaceful day, now blown
>> away,
>> blowing in the wind today....
 
> The "no-taking of no-sides" to which you refer cannot possibly be
> "non-conflictual" or "peaceful," because peaceful non-conflict is precisely
> one possible "side." So the "no-taking of no-sides" is not a factical
> possibility, but rather is the possibility of any facticity (including war).

Of course, you're perfectly correct that in making any such statement as
"the non-conflictual no-taking of no-sides that would be the being a-side" I
am at least appearing to take the side of taking no sides. But, and
hopefully not appearing to be as pretentious as I actually am here, I am
attempting to approach a nearness with a dispatch from a peaceful 'region'
or better, 'regioning'. That essentially war must needs have a provenance in
the taking of sides, and if something like peace means the essential (not a
simple happenstance or accidence) absence of something like war, then peace
(not a simple ontic happenstance of what is called 'peaceful' or a state of
peace breaking out, etc) can only emanate from a not-taking-sides. Moreover,
it also implies the not taking the side of not taking sides too... Whilst
this ontic position might well be ontically impossible for a human to rest
or stand in, it does provide a direction and horizon for peace to be thought
from. My use of the term "ontic" (and its cognates) should also provide a
clumsy clue as to the attempted (though wholly unsuccessful and perhaps
impossible) nature of my linguistic aspiration (in the same sense that
Plato's teaching sought to orient thoughtful human being not this way or
that way (doxa) but upwards (the good)). I am asking that we be guided by
the non-taking-of-sides (and by not taking that non-taking as a side to be
taken) in the thinking of the business of war and peace, and, see what
emanates, flows, comes forth from such a 'peace' as I am professing (as a
horizon, not a position). I am also aware of how preposterous this sounds
(but is it more preposterous than the coming violence?).

regards

michaelP 

--MS_Mac_OE_3130928994_741330_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

> michaelP wrote:

>> Interestingly, an abyssal failure looms, faced with the 'current
>> situation',
>> when a dismal numbers game shows its face or an opinionated chat concerning
>> 'justification' (or not) arises and rambles on, but, worse than any of this
>> (although not unexpected) is the awful gulf that exists in popular parlance
>> between 'action' (read: a continuous destructive ruthless violent
>> bombardment) and '(continued) diplomacy' (read: incessant compromising
>> 'high-level' chat), such that the one is the so-called 'only' alternative
>> to
>> the other; this 'either/or' is a conflict between a 'war' and a 'peace' but
>> does not come from peace as the non-conflictual no-taking of no-sides that
>> would be the being a-side, the third way (the neither/nor of 'peace'
>> {diplomacy} and 'war' {bombardment}) towards a peaceful day, now blown
>> away,
>> blowing in the wind today....

> The "no-taking of no-sides" to which you refer cannot possibly be
> "non-conflictual" or "peaceful," because peaceful non-conflict is precisely
> one possible "side." So the "no-taking of no-sides" is not a factical
> possibility, but rather is the possibility of any facticity (including war).