|
RonMazorSecondPaper 18 - 22 May 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video. | |
<
< | The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted. | >
> | The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an informal investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. | | | | |
<
< | When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I had taken a class on the laws of war and American military intervention in college, and I was pretty sure that what I had seen contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions. I was further shocked that the Army had declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers at wartime in making decisions with imperfect information and with lives hanging in the balance. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the people making the decisions are taking the weight of their choices seriously. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry. | >
> | When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I was pretty sure that what I saw contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions, and I was shocked that the Army declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers in making decisions. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the weight of such choices are seriously considered. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry. | | | | |
<
< | When I brought this topic up with Eben, along with my idea of analyzing the footage for war crimes violations, Eben suggested I take a closer look and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, he saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right. | >
> | When I brought this topic up with Eben, he suggested I take a closer look at what I didn't know, and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, Eben saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right. | | | Concerns | |
<
< | When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to Youtube to view a video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization. | >
> | When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to a Youtube video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization. | | | | |
<
< | I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid. | >
> | I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. While a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid. | | | Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
Analysis | |
<
< | The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicates the picture. | >
> | The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicated the picture. | | | | |
<
< | At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important emotional and situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions. | >
> | At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions. | | | | |
<
< | Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van does not seem to pose any threat. However, the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--are not publicly available. | >
> | Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van demonstrates no obvious hostile act/intent. | | | | |
<
< | WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants. | >
> | WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement (ROE) in place--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants. | | | | |
<
< | Zhuangzi | >
> | Conclusion
I remain troubled by the incidents of July 12, 2007. However, I see now that my initial ire –sparked by viewing the short video—was premature. In relying on a single source, I failed to exercise critical judgment and left myself closed to other interpretations of the event. | | | | |
<
< | "The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see." | >
> | When I first saw the Wikileaks images, I thought I knew all I needed--ignoring important gaps of knowledge deeply relevant to the events of July 12. I would have been better served to recall the words of Zhuangzi on certainty: | | | | |
<
< | Zhuangzi did not write about analyzing evidence. He wrote about what it means to live a harmonious life. Nevertheless, a couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other attributes, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces things as they are, good and bad.
These ideas interrelate. For example, do we know that death is a bad thing, or that the dead are less happy than the living? If one can dream of being a butterfly, is it not possible that one is a butterfly dreaming of being a man? Is not uselessness a virtue, given that the useless live life unmolested by outside pressures? Zhuangzi likes existential questions, and uses them to challenge assumptions.
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
(My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective.)
Work in progress... | >
> | “Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" | | | A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David |
|
|
RonMazorSecondPaper 17 - 21 May 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | (Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.) | |
<
< | Introduction and Background | >
> | Introduction | | | On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video.
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted. | | | Analysis | |
<
< | These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know about the incident after the leak. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question. | >
> | The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicates the picture. | | | | |
<
< | As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital - all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills are able to convincingly alter photographs. | >
> | At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important emotional and situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions. | | | | |
<
< | This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of concrete evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so. | >
> | Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van does not seem to pose any threat. However, the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--are not publicly available. | | | | |
>
> | WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants. | | | Zhuangzi |
|
|
RonMazorSecondPaper 16 - 20 May 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid. | |
<
< | Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced. | >
> | Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced. | | | Analysis |
|
|
RonMazorSecondPaper 15 - 20 May 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid. | |
<
< | Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left the longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced. | >
> | Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced. | | | Analysis | | | "The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see." | |
<
< | "Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" | >
> | Zhuangzi did not write about analyzing evidence. He wrote about what it means to live a harmonious life. Nevertheless, a couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other attributes, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces things as they are, good and bad.
These ideas interrelate. For example, do we know that death is a bad thing, or that the dead are less happy than the living? If one can dream of being a butterfly, is it not possible that one is a butterfly dreaming of being a man? Is not uselessness a virtue, given that the useless live life unmolested by outside pressures? Zhuangzi likes existential questions, and uses them to challenge assumptions. | | | | |
<
< | Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, a Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read. A couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other things, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces all things as they are, good and bad. | >
> | "Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" | | | | |
<
< | My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective towards evidence. | >
> | (My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective.) | | | Work in progress...
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David |
|
|
RonMazorSecondPaper 14 - 20 May 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | When I brought this topic up with Eben, along with my idea of analyzing the footage for war crimes violations, Eben suggested I take a closer look and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, he saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right. | |
<
< | Zhuangzi
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, the Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read.
Work in progress... | | | Concerns | |
<
< | There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise. | >
> | When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to Youtube to view a video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization. | | | | |
<
< | Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Even if it is, we cannot know this definitively. It is impossible to tell how extensively the video has been edited. | >
> | I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left the longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced. | | | Analysis | | | This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of concrete evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so. | |
<
< | Conclusions | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are overseas. | >
> | Zhuangzi | | | | |
<
< | As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations, which isn't what we want. | >
> | "The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see." | | | | |
<
< | In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. We want ethical behavior by our military, and when things go wrong, we want full impartial investigations. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place. | >
> | "Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, a Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read. A couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other things, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces all things as they are, good and bad.
My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective towards evidence.
Work in progress... | | | A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David |
|
| Revision 18 | r18 - 22 May 2010 - 01:07:23 - RonMazor |
| Revision 17 | r17 - 21 May 2010 - 05:57:14 - RonMazor |
| Revision 16 | r16 - 20 May 2010 - 16:58:28 - RonMazor |
| Revision 15 | r15 - 20 May 2010 - 06:01:16 - RonMazor |
| Revision 14 | r14 - 20 May 2010 - 04:01:26 - RonMazor |
| Revision 13 | r13 - 19 May 2010 - 23:57:27 - RonMazor |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|