Posted by panch from pool0417.cvx25-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (209.179.217.162) on Saturday, July 13, 2002 at 11:12AM :
Assyrians love logic. They talk about it...they challenge each other with it...they stress the lack of it...point out the subltelties of it...stab each other with it, blow their noses into it...cook with it...
Assyrians LOVE logic. It makes sense doesn't it? I mean it IS logical that we'd be here...having used logic as we define it...like using a wet noodle to open a can with.
I took a Logic class in college...and like any warm blooded and empty headed Assyrian argued with the professor...logically of course. I made SUCH an ass of myself that to this day I am humbled by what a great job I did. I also dropped the class...it was the logical thing to do.
My main problem came as a result of not understanding the very basis of Logic. I thought, like any Cannibalistic Assyrian that Logic was the knife you used to slice up an oponent with. It was the cudgel used to smash his brains out his ears with. Logic was dynamite...nitro glycerine with which you would demolish whole hosts of opponents...Logic was what proved YOU were right...it was what the other guy was always lacking, that allowed you to step over him every time as he lay there in a pool of blood your Logic had caused to flow from him.
The premise for Logic is very simple, but telling. You have to agree on the premisies for any debate or argument. Then, and only then, can you have a logical discussion in order to determine the conclusion. If you can't agree on the premise, then you are fighting, not discussing in a "logical" manner.
The set up is somethign like this...you propose that if A is true, and B is true, it will follow that C must also be true. C being the conclusion.
Now what a ridiculous notion said I. What was the point of even arguing if you were gonna agree on almost everything to start with? I wanted to know how to bludgeon the other guy on EVERY point...screw the conclusion...who's gonna argue with my conclusion if he's dead anyway? I win BECAUSE you lose...and I make sure you lose by smashing you over the head with facts that weigh a ton.
By the strict rules of the game two people who don't agree on the premises for the argument to begin with, can't have a logical discussion at all...it will be a fight.
If I say that women are inferior because history shows us that they never achieved much...and the person I want to argue with says that isn't true, that the reason I think that way is because I look at history through a man's eyes, consider "achievements"...through a man's eyes ...in other words if I and the person I wish to argue with can't agree on the definition of words such as "achievement", 'accomplishment"...or even what it means to be a "woman" OR a "man"...then we aren't going to have anything but a fight.
If a Southern Cracker and I agree that Black people have made a bad showing in American society...and if we agree that they never chose to come here in the first place...and if we agree that adjusting to America as a slave first has some serious drawbacks...and if we agree that Africans are inherently no more nor less capabale than anyone else...and if we also agree that traumatic events visited on an entire population can leave serious scars on the soul...and if we agree that environment and opportunities and the lack of overt signs of hatred or the inferiority of one group can have serious effects as to how those people will perform...if we agree on all those terms, then we might be able to have a logical discussion in which the "conclusion" is far from a sure thing.
This stuff was way beyond my interest in 1968. There were race riots back then, the Black Panthers declared war on the Oakland Police...machine gun fire was heard in cities...whole blocks were incinerated...the National Guard was killing unarmed students on college campuses and over in Vietnam, a country that hadn't done a thing to us, our leaders were encouraging us to lay down our poerty books and go kill and rape the people. These were NOT Logical times...it seemed then that only a machine gun could settle an arguement...as our government was showing us how to do...this was a time when no one could agree on anything...when the things people used to think they all agreed on...Blacks...what a woman was...what college kids were supposed to do...what duty did you have to defy your government...what was a "patriot" anyway...what was a "legitimate" threat to our way of life...all of these things were in dispute...with people ready to beat up their own children...to WISH them into a war.
In that setting, who could agree on ANY premise.... that there was a hope in hell of reaching any conclusion but that we were all insane...that the country had gone nuts first and taken the rest of us with it...just like now.
-- panch
-- signature .
Follow Ups: