We're all complicit
I wrote this exact sentence about the exact same subject some 6 months ago and was royally kicked from pillar to post. I wonder what certain people will say now ? keep to the Fen Causeway
Unless one wants to argue that by not spending 24/7 for the rest of my life finding the most egregious bad acts done by humans to other humans (or beyond!) and then working out how, as a member of the human race, I must be responsible in some way--or didn't do enough somehow, didn't act when I should have--
Or go the other way:
If had voted for (or encouraged others to vote for) torture-enablers, I'd be complicit in approving their general scheme (but maybe I was lied to!)
If I currently agreed with the torture-enabling stance, I'd be condoning torture activities and therefore an accomplice of sorts.
But I didn't and I don't--so why am I complicit? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
At what point does resistance become a moral obligation? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Sizing up other investors is more than a matter of psychology. New logical notions are needed as well. One of them, "common knowledge", due originally to the economist Robert Aumann, is crucial to understanding the complexity of the stock market and the importance of transparency. A bit of information is common knowledge among a group of people if all prties know it, know that the others know it, know that the others know they know it, and so on. It is much more than "mutual knowledge", which requires only that the parties know the particular bit of information, not that they be aware of others' knowledge. As I'll discuss later, this notion of common knowledge is essential to seeing how "subterranean information processing" often underlies sudden bubbles or crashes in the markets, changes that are precipitated by nothing at all and therefore are almost impossible to foresee. -- John Allen Paulos in A Mathematician Plays the Market
As I'll discuss later, this notion of common knowledge is essential to seeing how "subterranean information processing" often underlies sudden bubbles or crashes in the markets, changes that are precipitated by nothing at all and therefore are almost impossible to foresee. -- John Allen Paulos in A Mathematician Plays the Market
Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. [smiles] Prince Geoffrey: We're a knowledgeable family. The Lion in Winter (1968) - Memorable quotes
The Lion in Winter (1968) - Memorable quotes
Just one of the many memorable quotes from a memorable movie. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
And thank the good lord that some people seem to enjoy that line of work--unpleasant but necessary.
I'd see it the other way: every day we are engaged in resistance actions; but those that are enjoyable for us and everyone else around us are the...most enjoyable--and they're acts of resistance as much as building up a head of frustration and then lashing out.
I understand the need to lash out, but it always seems--to me--to produce a whole heap of negative energy.
So--resistance. I'd suggest that the first resistance is to peer pressure--to think and act like everyone else.
The next form of resistance is in ones choice of profession. If no one chose a profession that involves picking up a gun, there'd be no more need for guns, that kind of thing--"You are implicated by the job you do"--no "I had to do it" except in extreme circumstances (and aren't they always?)
Then there's our money. Ignoring the tax part for a moment, where we spend our money--in a chain store or in a local store, on high quality products or tat, on valuable items or on nonsense. (There's so much money sitting around--it could be put to better use!)
Then there's social involvement: are you (am I) involved in my local community in some way, do I participate or do I just live in my box and ignore the others--
Hmmmm....
I'd say....hmmmm.....hate and blame can be laid at anyone's feet--and will presumably be repaid in kind--hence maybe a progressive reaction to so much hate and blame is to want to throw it back--or inwards (in the devil's advocate version--!)
I'd say: to the extent that I look out for myself before all others--to the extent I behave in that way I am complicit in the system that supports my selfish ways. To the extent I participate with others--the system is there to support us--but what if I'm a nazi? Not very bright, maybe, but I can see the system's not working for me--or my kind--and now I'm building up a head of angry steam, I've got some moral indignation going on--and then the Grand Wizard leads a meeting, but he's anguished!
"We are complicit!" he screams. "We allowed them dirty niggers to stomp on all that we love. We are guilty, brothers and sisters--"
And then the scene morphs to a Stop The War meeting--and the local leader is talking about their progress and she says,
"We are complicit. We allowed those scum-sucking parasites to--"
If the idea is to goad people into action, I always prefer something more...arousing than self-flagelation.
Whack! Whack! We have sinned! Forgive us!
Ah, but there's no god to ask for forgiveness..--
So--it's a rhetorical device to argue what states should be doing--and why they aren't. And the answer is: they (we) are complicit. Well....of course! The powerful are always complicit in retaining their parity of power--obsessed by it--no going down the ladder, no sliding down the greasy pole--and those that do...they might be nazis or....some other terrible kind of people--
So if I have power, I have responsibility. And if I use my power to negative ends--or if I allow my position of power to shelter me from the negative ends of another person--without protecting those who don't have my position of power to protect them--unless I offer it, in which case the power is shared--if they want it, but often they don't, human beings--complex thoughts--driven by crazy fantasies.
I just don't think adding "we" to the bunch of people who need kicking out of their bunker--adds anything, unless it's taken at the level of individual actions--so first up, your social circle, your direct human contacts; then your economic contacts, or should it be your professional contacts; and then your social contacts--back to the beginning, but a helix not a circle...--
Gah!
Okay, I think anyone who voted for Berlusconi is complicit in either their own stupidity (they don't want to be informed); or their own mendacity--or just plain confused--but how can a person be confused by Berlusconi?
That's a triple ach confusion /rant Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
My point was not that you disagree with the formulation of "we are all complicit", I was rather making the prediction that nobody was gonna have a go at JaP for saying it, which has been borne out.
Conversely people people felt very free back then to make pretty strong attacks, not just on the suggestion of personal complicity, but asking who the heck I thought I was for making the slur. Let's be honest I am not noticeably intellecutally equipped to refute protestations of innocence from those who are prepared to write at length a philosophical version of Bart Simpson saying "You can't prove anything guv". But JaP is, .... so crickets chirp.
Others here have discussed the extent of complicity in a representative democracy. They may not represent every view you hold but, via constituecy obligations, they represent you directly. Others have asked the depth of guilt in which people voted for Bush despite knowing what was being done in their name.
But that was not my point, and you proved it. keep to the Fen Causeway
I did remember you writing "We are all complicit" a while back, and I remember replying "Why am I complicit?"
(Beyond that I don't remember.)
So, fair enough. What will I say now? Well,
I'll say what I said then:
should be (if one asssumes good faith!) translate as: I will repeat here [here = in public, in Jerome's diary]
etc...
Let's be honest I am not noticeably intellecutally equipped to refute protestations of innocence from those who are prepared to write at length a philosophical version of Bart Simpson saying "You can't prove anything guv". But JaP is, .... so crickets chirp.
Not sure what the Bart Simpson part is about, but my question ("Why am I complicit?") is here in this diary. Jerome (or anyone else) is free to deal with the question--that's why I wrote it again--to counter the suggestion that I (we? I'll come back to that) wouldn't ask such a thing if Jerome were reading, ready to reply.
Conversely people people felt very free back then to make pretty strong attacks, not just on the suggestion of personal complicity, but asking who the heck I thought I was for making the slur.
I don't remember any of that--if it was me, I apologise!--
(I presume the written records are stored in the ET historyfile somewhere--I can't find them.)
If your point was that I needed prodding--well, my reasons for not replying were varied, but not to do with only picking on those who can't argue back--if you see it that way, I'm sorry--it certainly wasn't and isn't my intention--
(I was hoping...heh!....that my reply would counteract that--can you see? I did it to invalidate any suggestions--not an ego thing, more a 'stand up for others' sense--the 'other' in this case was you!--that Jerome was somehow not to be argued with.)
Or--gah! I took on board your point (as I understood it) that [negative quality --->] the individual doing the stating is more important than the statement--a hierarchy thing--and I tried to negate the hierarchy thing by [attempt to remove the negative quality -->] re-stating as an open question the same point such that it would be clear that at least for me this wasn't a hierarchy thing.
That was my intention. ...
But assuming there were more people involved, I can't invalidate it on my own--
Assuming those other people are reading, of course!
And assuming I haven't missed the point again (I am a slow learner!) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
A number of people around here are simply noticeably more pissed off with our rulers now than they were six months ago. It may be that the my own perceptions have changed (in fact, I'm pretty sure they have), but I do think that the appeals to some sort of active resistance have wider appeal than they used to have.
Of course, the Admin effect is probably a factor in the relatively less... vociferous nature of the criticism (picking flamewars with a Root is something you don't do unless you're terminally stupid).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
They see it (or not), and they are not saying anything. Even now, as they blithely talk about how unpopular these leaders are, wondrously opine about the financial crisis as if it were an unrelated, exogenous event.
Slowly drowning in syrup. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
