Hi Lisa,

I know what you mean about how the real thing sometimes doesn't stack up to its reputation/image. I saw your reply in the Bladerunner-Opening thread. Are you sure it's Tricky's Aftermath? I listened to a sample of it on Amazon, and it's not the song I remember.

In reply to your comment:
“Yes, that's it, Kelly. (http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=80997) I saw it in London when I was on a college trip in the late '70s. It was in the big "Dada and Surrealist Reviewed" show at the Hayward Gallery along with Duchamps urinal, 'natch! It's like when you see celebrities in person and they seem really small and norma l It's kind of ratty looking. You can see where the skin and the glue used has yellowed and dried...hey, it happens to all of us right? Haven't been to the new, improved MoMA yet, I'm more apt to be outside on the street selling my own art, but it's free on Fridays from 4-8pm so there's no excuses!

I love your avatar, and pomegranates, and am intrigued by what eden wrote. I need to look that up!

-Lisa

In reply to your comment:
“Hi Lisa,

I was trying to remember where I saw your avatar pic before. I just found it in an old art book. Is it Meret Oppenheim's 'Object' at The Museum of Modern Art, NY? Is it still at the museum? Is it a photo, or an actual object? (haven't been there yet..)
Kelly””

Yes, that's it, Kelly. (http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=80997) I saw it in London when I was on a college trip in the late '70s. It was in the big "Dada and Surrealist Reviewed" show at the Hayward Gallery along with Duchamps urinal, 'natch! It's like when you see celebrities in person and they seem really small and norma l It's kind of ratty looking. You can see where the skin and the glue used has yellowed and dried...hey, it happens to all of us right? Haven't been to the new, improved MoMA yet, I'm more apt to be outside on the street selling my own art, but it's free on Fridays from 4-8pm so there's no excuses!

I love your avatar, and pomegranates, and am intrigued by what eden wrote. I need to look that up!

-Lisa

In reply to your comment:
“Hi Lisa,

I was trying to remember where I saw your avatar pic before. I just found it in an old art book. Is it Meret Oppenheim's 'Object' at The Museum of Modern Art, NY? Is it still at the museum? Is it a photo, or an actual object? (haven't been there yet..)
Kelly”

Hi Lisa,

I was trying to remember where I saw your avatar pic before. I just found it in an old art book. Is it Meret Oppenheim's 'Object' at The Museum of Modern Art, NY? Is it still at the museum? Is it a photo, or an actual object? (haven't been there yet..)
Kelly

Yes I agree that rationality should be based within the realms of morals and so on.

However my statement is simply reflective of the world we live in, while it would be nice if we were all rational agents with morales it is no so. While we can clinically analyze certain things and work out the pros and cons of certain step over others it is too often that our morality gives away in face of fear or other emotional responses. Some that go far deeper then any rationality or morality can control.

Observe the war drums post 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Most of what happened during that time was rationality gone in face of mass hysteria and fear over a terrorist attack. Rationality would imply that while the attack was devastating it was not the world changing event as pro-war advocates make it seem. That Iraq is not a threat, I mean the most powerful country in the world coming down to presenting a case for war based on fuzzy sat images and power point presentations.

Take this for example, the US supports Israel with arms and international backing in the UN where it struck down more then 60 resolutions aimed at ending the perpetual conflict that exists there. The conditions are nearing apartheid, the Arab people see this as backing of imperialism of Jewish people over the Palestinian and Arab in the Western bank and Golan heights. So anti-American fervor develops. Creating the large destabilization we now see in Iraq and so on. Is American support of Israel rational then? http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

At the same time rational thinking can be a problem as much as a solution. Look at Vietnam. Rationally the domino theory makes sense, while it gives no account to historical background. Thus flawed.

My overall point being that while we as the new generation might include a certain humanity in our thinking, this is not what happens in the highest level of goverment. But it's not all lost, hopefully with emerging communities like VS and Moveon.org and others young people can be educated and have a profound influence on our world in the future.

In reply to your comment:
““No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.””

“No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.”

No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.

I mean look at the Rwanda, the western world for all their praise of ethics and human rights did not seek to intervene in a genocide, because it wasn't a strategic objective. That is rational thinking at work. But was it the best thing to do as a human being?

That is not "rational thinking at work" its strategical thinking or political thinking, or the failure to act swiftly, raising awareness etc. We didnt not-intervene in Rwanda because it was irrational to do so.

There is no contradiction or conflict between "understanding, science and reason" vs "humanity and morals". Infact there must have been something irrational about Oppenheimer, and even more so the people who decided to use the atomic bomb. Not exactly religious irrationality, but something that told people it somehow made sense to kill an entire city or two full of civilians. Somewhere in their heads, they justified this, and I cant see how that justification was purely rational.

I don't really understand what you are trying to argue here? First and foremost no atheist can convince a agnostic or a theist to think etiher way or not. Religion and particular the question of God and faith is entirely subjective to the person. I mean no where did anyone state that religion is needed for the development of ethics and morality. But then again science is completely devoid of that as well, I mean look at the Rwanda, the western world for all their praise of ethics and human rights did not seek to intervene in a genocide, because it wasn't a strategic objective. That is rational thinking at work. But was it the best thing to do as a human being?

But adopting a stance of simply saying all religion is useless and meaningless is just immature I believe. It goes against exactly the kind of progressive thought science teaches. Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb, but I believe it was his humanity that made him question "What have I done".

Atheism and Religion can just as uncaring as each other, its people that make the difference.

Greatest quote of all time, and it's a double quote... we guote Oppenheimer quoting myth.

Don't worry, Robert J... this is all just another blink of Vishnu.

Well I don't know bamdrew, am still glad that everyone reached the conclusion that nuclear weapons would mean mutually assured destruction. So who knows? Plus his contributions went far beyond just creating nuclear weapons... and it was Oppenheimer who did it.