@EdenicFaithful's banner p

EdenicFaithful

Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC

				

User ID: 78

EdenicFaithful

Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 78

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most engaging parts of Said's The Question of Palestine were when he did literary analysis of novels and colonial writings. A lot of interesting facts or claims or documents about Israeli oppression and violence appeared, which will keep me busy for some time in reading up.

The prose is characteristically smooth, and ultimately his appeal for common sense, dedication and looking beyond the initial appearance of the Other had an impact, albeit mainly in abstract. This was likely because of my own lack of historical knowledge, which made it difficult to come up with an opinion on the topic at hand.

But also, Said's case sometimes seems to rest on the ability to ignore what people say and observe instead the context underlying their actions and words. I'm a firm believer in putting less faith in what people say, but one wonders if in this case it doesn't amount to casually dismissing the Israeli position while pig-headedly proclaiming that the cause of Palestinian liberation is really about democracy.

I can't easily call to mind any specific instance of this from this book, but in the third book in this trilogy, Covering Islam (which I'm still reading), Said takes issue with the framing of Hezbollah as a "terrorist, militant Shi'a group backed by Iran," and says that they are better understood as guerrillas whose purpose was to resist the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Failing to call them guerrillas means that "resistance is both dehumanized and rendered illegitimate." Granted that the context matters, isn't it natural that the religious element, the anti-Zionism and the ties to Iran matter to Israel and its allies from a security perspective?

It doesn't help that many things which have lost some trust with me are cited: Chomsky, United Nations, Amnesty International, etc. I suppose it goes both ways, as Said makes me wonder if perhaps I have been too hard on Chomsky after reading about the Khmer Rouge stuff.

I've come to believe that Said's books are genuinely important, but mainly because figuring out what he got right and got wrong may point a way forward to understanding. On their own, I have decidedly mixed feelings.

In broader strokes, many parts serve as a plea for things of merit. Ultimately Said wants a solution which allows both Israelites and Palestinians to see each other as the human beings that they are. A quote from Covering Islam, because I didn't highlight the interesting ones in Palestine, and because the same theme runs throughout it:

But what I really believe in is the existence of a critical sense and of citizens able and willing to use it to get beyond the special interests of experts and their idées recues. By using the skills of a good critical reader to disentangle sense from nonsense, by asking the right questions and expecting pertinent answers, anyone can learn...At that point, humanistic knowledge begins and communal responsibility for that knowledge begins to be shouldered.

I really like this side of Said, whatever else I may think. Unquestionably, these books have encouraged me to keep listening and thinking, and to seek a more involved understanding than I have thus far.

So, what are you reading?

I've finished Said's The Question of Palestine, Thoughts below. Not much progress on Savrola. Giving McLuhan's The Classical Trivium another try; the third or so that I've read has stayed with me.

So, what are you reading?

I'm finished with Sayers' Whose Body. Lord Whimsey was great, and it had enough intensity at times to grab my interest. I feel like the confrontation was a missed opportunity, given the convergence of themes which was implicit in the scene. A good read nevertheless.

Picking up Churchill's Savrola, because it has occurred to me that I've read more Hitler and Stalin than Churchill.

Mostly unconscious questionable impulses, would be more accurate for the people you describe. I think we all have a part of us that is capable of this, but I don't yet have any systematic thoughts on how those impulses take over, nor in what situations they can clearly be described as evil.

If you read school shooter manifestos or journals, you'll see a lot of parallels. This is the main basis for why I suggest that you don't dismiss these claims so easily. Something about the claim that "life is not worth living" is a recurring feature that I've noticed, or think that I've noticed.

I suspect that there is an underlying philosophy of evil which some aspect of the mind is prone towards believing in, perhaps because of the specific way in which that part of the mind works (ie. it may be an accidental but high-probability outcome) and in certain (as yet unknown to me) situations it takes over.

The problem is that the causality could go both ways. If you ask why someone doesn't want responsibility, the answer might be that some part of their mind is resentful towards the world.

It isn't necessarily a question of how cruel the world actually is. It might be a question of how much sway such tendencies hold over a person.

Personally, I think that "I didn't do X because life is evil" sounds an awful lot like saying the quiet part out loud, and stems from something deep and as yet poorly understood inside of the human mind.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on Sayers' Whose Body? Also reading Abelson's The Seven Liberal Arts after rereading Sayers' essay The Lost Tools of Learning.

I agree, except that if you start with the assumption that one doesn't yet know what the capabilities of AI are, then one rationally ought to keep space for skepticism of doomsday scenarios.

But you're right, and I don't assume that trouble isn't coming; I just saw the obvious other explanation for the talk of vulnerability-finding AI and determined based on how people were behaving that hype was the more likely explanation, this time. And I think that fear is primarily driven by the materialism of our times.

After all, when people talk about artificial intelligence replacing humans, the unstated premise is that humans are really just computers or not much better. See how easily they can do what humans can do? Haven't they passed the Turing Test?

Obviously, this is an attempt at mind reading, but I think it is a better explanation than marketing. As a marketing strategy, intentionally making promises that will obviously be falsified and talked about widely when the product is released seems silly.

I thought all the talk about software vulnerabilities would peter out for now, but I don't think that marketing is the only explanation.

Materialists are making the logically consistent assumption that if humans are computers, then AI is guaranteed to surpass our capabilities in every respect. So they predict a future which may not be real if materialism isn't real, and are hallucinating that such a future has arrived out of a cycle of fear and a desire to get ahead of it.

Strictly speaking, just because one hyped-up thing failed to hit the mark, it doesn't mean that it isn't coming, especially given the pace of developments. But Charlie Kirk said it right: AI is destined to throw our assumptions into chaos one way or another, and I, for one, am curious to see exactly what gets discredited as our knowledge and actual experience is forced to increase. Though it would be nice if we had a better understanding of things before we're forced to learn it inadvertently.

So, what are you reading?

I'm finally done with Christie's And Then There Were None. Didn't have much preamble, it just goes straight into it. Seems like a book written to an audience already very familiar with her work. It was enjoyable enough, and the characters worked. I've more or less given up on the desire to figure out who the killer is beforehand in these kinds of books, and I find that it is pleasant to read them like that. I'm afraid that the only other thing which I can say is that my favourite character died.

Going to give another stab at Sayers' Whose Body?

So, what are you reading?

I've finished The Handmaid's Tale. It's a book I'll have to read again sometime, since there's clearly a lot which I haven't noticed. Can't say it ever came together for me, but maybe that's because I didn't really understand its thrust. The tone throughout was sterile, which was probably intentional, given the motifs of waiting and idleness. The world itself never made a convincing dystopia; it was way too lax in just about everything, and the sense of fear of reprisals or of other people never became more than a literary suggestion. The writing was quite good.

It proved as curious as Atwood, who has not been a predictable simpleton when it comes to politics. On the one hand, it could be read as a screed against the religious right, but the picture is always muddled by something, like the quoting of the communist from each according to his ability. The last chapter muddies the picture even further, making us wonder to what extent this is to be taken as history or myth. As a myth, it may be something of value, something worth a closer look. As a history, it is laced with what seems like old arguments among old activists which seems to limp on eternally, even up to paranoia over viruses.

Going to try some Agatha Christie next, which perennialy seems to be collecting dust on my shelf.