Brandon D. Valentine on Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:08:23 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> incoming! digest [valentine (x2), cantsin] |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 08:18:58PM +0100, david garcia wrote: > > > My suggestion: Donate blood, not rhetoric. > > Brandon's final suggestion treats us to yet another Bush like binary, > another false dichotomy like theory vs practice. For us or against us! > Blood or rhetoric. humanitarian relief or fury. Well lets donate both! they > are not mutually exclusive. You forsake semantics to dwell on syntax. Let me assure you my diction was not chosen to indicate exclusivity. Rather my linguistic aim was deliberate mimicry of my ideological opposition's penchant for false dichotomy. Here are a few: Make love, not war. Food, not bombs. These things too are not mutually exclusive. Now, syntax aside, we examine the merit of the suggestion. We work under pretext of the given that time is scarce, which I assume any entrant into a debate to understand as natural fact.[0] Both tasks, humanitarian relief effort and public debate of substance[1], if done to any appreciable degree require substantial commitments of this scarce resource, time. If one treats these endeavors as anything other than mutually exclusive it follows that either one of three conditions result: 1) Relief effort and debate are performed with an equal commitment of time. 2) Relief effort becomes subordinate to debate. 3) Debate becomes subordinate to relief effort. One must consider whether these endeavors scale linearly or whether the relationship between time invested and return on investment is along a curve. I suspect that in both cases a curve is more likely. How severe is that curve? Can result (1) produce useful relief effort or debate of substance[1]? If not, then one endeavor must be subordinated to the other. That decision becomes a decidedly subjective moral judgement in which I already given you my preference: Donate blood, not rhetoric. You are welcome to your own interpretation of the merits of either course of action. [0] - The prevalence of postmodern subjectivism does nothing to validate its practictioners penchant for slothful induction and I neither condone nor entertain subjective reinterpretation of the objective. [1] - That is public debate which serves to inform, not misinform, public debate which adheres to dialectic rigor in honest attempt to secure the best answer, not the most ideologically satisfying one. Brandon D. Valentine -- brandon@dvalentine.com http://www.geekpunk.net Pseudo-Random Googlism: valentine is more than cards and candy hearts illustration by michael o'neill mcgrath # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net