date: Feb 26, 2022 at 5:50 AM
subject: Ukraine
I could be persuaded otherwise, I think, but for now, and except the very first sentence, this article reflects my views reasonably well,
https://unherd.com/2022/02/why-putin-is-no-hitler/
One could add that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, and that this is another good reason not to get involved
On Putin, I’m more inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt. Not heard elaborated on much is the argument that Russia can no more tolerate NATO in Ukraine than America could tolerate Russian missiles in Cuba. Does that justify invading Ukraine? Probably not, but maybe. I don’t understand Putin’s situation and motives enough to have a strongly held view.
I can see a danger in Europe doing something stupid and Putin retaliating by reducing gas exports to Europe, or shutting it down altogether. Closing down Nordstream 2 at this time seems to me to be more risky for Germany than for Russia. The EU are seriously dependent on Russia for their gas supply. Britain less so, only about 5%, but the whole regional gas market will (very likely) become a fluid thing if EU gas supplies, and prices, come under serious pressure. We get some 50% of our gas from Norway, and some 25% from the EU. Norway may not have a pipeline infra-structure to easily switch exports from Britain to EU, but if prices go up in EU that will also affect our Norwegian gas. And the 25% from the EU (mostly Holland and Belgium) will immediately come under pressure if the EU will need that gas themselves.
Germany and France are seen as caving in to Russia, but I don’t think they have a realistic choice.
Their mistake was to become so dependent on Russian gas in the first place. Now they’re stuck.
You can tell I’m more concerned about economics and gas supplies than about the rights and wrongs of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. War is a pretty constant factor in human history, whatever the rights and wrongs of Ukraine are. I believe in having a strong military and not being afraid to throw our (i.e. the West, i.e. American) weight around, like against Iran, but to pick your wars very, very carefully. Ukraine is not our (the West’s) responsibility, morally, legally or otherwise, and we’re in no position to do anything realistic about it anyway.
fwiw
your friend henk
date: Saturday, 26 February 2022 at 13:02
subject: Re: Ukraine
Greetings Henk,
Hope all is well.
Three comments...
In my opinion, UnHerd is one of the better alternatives to the MSM.
You can tell I’m more concerned about economics and gas supplies than about the rights and wrongs of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine.
I appreciate you being aware of and sharing your personal point of view.
I am trying to be, just be, more of an observer of world affairs and less of an opinionated commentator, but this is not meant as criticism of you.
Regards,
John
date: Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 6:35 PM
subject: Re: Ukraine
Hi John
You saying how you are different from me is not taken as a criticism.
One of the bigger differences between us is that I want to understand the rights and wrongs of the world and major issues in it. As opposed to you who, I think, doesn’t believe there are necessarily all that many rights and wrongs, that’s too black and white for you. And where, or if, there are any, you wouldn’t have the audacity to think that you could judge which is which. That’s not your nature, your nature is to seek the common ground in the grey areas in between.
We can probably agree that the world needs both types of people (I think, maybe, but I’m not so sure – if you don’t believe that there are that many rights and wrongs, then the logical view should be that the world doesn’t need people who see rights and wrongs that aren’t there. So maybe we don’t even agree on that. Let alone on where it is an issue of rights and wrongs).
all the best Guys
your friend henk
date: Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 14:39
subject: Re: Ukraine
Greetings Henk,
I still savour the intense email exchanges we had for a few years beginning in 2013. No one has ever put more effort into trying to understand me than you. I have not found as much time to capture that special experience on my website as I had hoped.
And you are still trying, although I continue to be an alien.
We can probably agree that the world needs both types of people ...
Yes, we agree. However, the world needs much more than two ways of thinking. There are many reasonable ways of thinking and we need them all. From that may emerge some collective wisdom.
I do think that there are many rights and wrongs and I want to understand them to the extent that my limited capacity allows. And I think we should judge between rights and wrongs as they apply to major issues. That is not where our differences are.
We are back to our core difference. You believe that your framework for judging is based on absolute truth which ultimately comes from God. I have no such belief, but I accept your view as a reasonable one.
I view truth as a human construct. I view rights and wrongs as human constructs and judgements. I view all perspectives as human constructs. I view all judgments as human actions. My view takes God out of the picture. But I do not want the possibility of God taken out of the picture when it comes to seeking collective wisdom.
So, yes, your thinking is too black and white for me personally. But your frame has a legitimate place at the table of aggregate human thinking. We need many frames around the major issues, not just yours and mine. We need to see through many different lenses. And no, I do not think all frames and lenses are of equal value. That too we can and should judge.
Regards,
John
date: Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:55 AM
subject: Re: Ukraine
Hey John
Well said, mostly.
Perhaps a bit of a break from the frustrations that I allowed myself to get into has changed my perspective about our discussions somewhat, plus the realisation that I just have to learn to care in a different way than I did. I find it hard when people can’t see what to me seems bleedingly obvious, and I keep trying. When that doesn’t work I tend(ed) to see that as a personal failing. Not terribly healthy, but we all live and learn. You’re not even the most “frustrating”, by a long shot. That goes to people who sincerely believe they seek the same God as I do. I found it relatively easy to understand, and accept, that you work from a totally different paradigm, like you explained below. Of course, that still means that sooner or later I still can’t understand how you can think like you do. Until I remind myself that I am expecting too much rationality. We just need to look at the world all around us and it should be obvious that there is much irrationality driving people’s actions and words, and therefore thinking. Note the non-judgmental phrasing of that, and the complete absence of any arguing what or who is rational and what or who is irrational.
Your belief that Truth and the resulting rights and wrongs are human constructs is a good example of that. To me that’s an oxymoron.
If it’s a human construct than everyone will make up or choose his own, which makes it meaningless. If there’s no agreed on basis for truth and rights and wrongs then you have your “truth” and I will have mine. It doesn’t come more post-modern and completely meaningless than that. I suspect that you will be in Sam Harris’ camp in this. He can’t see either that if you ditch God then there will be no basis for any moral values, or “truth”.
Black & white vs nuanced are on different ends of a continuum. Neither is right or wrong. Personalities often come with preferences for one or the other. You and I are examples of that. My ability to see the rights and wrongs (or b&w) and your ability to see the common ground in the grey in between, should be complementing each other. I will tend to see things too b&w and you will tend to see them too nuanced. Wisdom is learning to apply both (b&w and nuance) to better understand the whole issue. We could help each other with that, except that for that to work we need a common basis to work from. Otherwise we won’t be able to agree when something should be seen as (more) b&w and when (more) nuanced. Or where - many issues, like the Ukraine invasion, will have both b&w and nuanced aspects.
Diane just made a big bowl of guacamole – makes me think of when we sat in that outdoors restaurant watching Holland Australia and the waiter was
making guacamole at our table. That’s the first time I had fresh guacamole like that. Good memories.
all the best John
your friend henk
date: Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 20:41
subject: Re: Ukraine
Your last email has a lovely tone, Henk. We are probably both feeling less frustrated, at least with each other. My frustrations with family have grown in recent years as I have watched them become captured by conspiracy theories and culture war.
Although Sam Harris changed the trajectory of my life with his book Waking Up, I am definitely not in his camp. His response to postmodernism has been to retreat to modernism. He places too much emphasis on rationality and science and he seems to have difficulty understanding other ways of thinking. His responses to criticism of his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values were not very impressive. But it is not difficult for me and many others to construct moral values without using science or God.
My response to postmodernism has been to advance to metamodernism. The last time I tried to explain that to you I did not get very far. And I am content to leave it at that.
A few years ago I thought nuclear war was unlikely. Now I just selfishly hope that there is not one in my lifetime. It is not hard to imagine Putin using nukes if anyone tries to get in his way in Ukraine. But if the Chinese try the same tactic to take Taiwan, someone would probably call their bluff. But what if they aren't bluffing?
Let's keep dreaming about eating guacamole and drinking margaritas together again someday.
Regards,
John
date: Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:16 PM
subject: Re: Ukraine
Thank you John
It’s been a busy two days – but we now have all our stuff out of storage and in Rhea & Mark’s house.
We’re in their house in Aberdeen for two weeks while they are on honey moon in Barbados, and then we move in here in May when they move to Australia.
That same culture war that I think we’re not nearly serious enough about?
And conspiracy theorists would be anyone who undermines the establishment narrative? Like QAnon? And people who dissent from the Covid gospel preached by Fauci e.a.? Like Joe Rogan?
I suggested a very specific similarity between you and Sam Harris – I suspect that you will be in Sam Harris’ camp in this. He can’t see either that if you ditch God then there will be no basis for any moral values, or “truth”.
But you answer in very general terms and overlook my specific suggestion.
Concur on the metamodernism.
Yeah, (nuclear) war doe seem less implausible then it was not that long ago. But then times of economic turmoil and crisis, which seems to be building, and which people who understand that history runs in cycles understand we are entering into (which would not be you, at least according to you a few years ago), often involve weakening of dominant geopolitical players which often results in military challenges by rivals who smell weakness, i.e. war.
Yep, we will. In this life or the next.
all the best, John
your friend henk
date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 14:58
subject: Re: Ukraine
Hi Henk,
I accept your specific point about Sam Harris and me. God is not essential for the determination of moral values. God is not a factor in my life today but I have moral values. What I do not have are godly moral values. We will probably never agree on this point.
No, I do not believe that everything that undermines the establishment narrative is a conspiracy theory. I do not spend much time on MSM these days. The alternative media has some of the best information available, and some of the worst.
Yes, I still do not put faith in viewing history through the lens of cycles. But I do not disagree with your point about smelling weakness. For me, an important insight is knowing that the future is unknown and unknowable. Prove me wrong. Make three very specific predictions within a two year time frame.
I think I will post this conversation on my website and I will give you an opportunity for the last word.
Regards,
John
date: Mar 4, 2022, 11:54 AM
subject: Re: Ukraine
Hi again John
So far it sure looks like we won’t agree – no argument there.
A couple of somewhat important questions that I find you have trouble giving a coherent answers to:
how do moral values (yours and everyone else’s) have any meaning if everyone decides or makes up their own?
why are your moral values better than those of the Sinaloa or the Jalisco New Generation? or are they?
you attach importance to consensus as a basis for judgment calls (I’ve had the impression that your definition of “objective” is “consistent with the consensus”), so what happens when the consensus is that Uyrghurs should have their organs harvested?
Haha, yes, good one. Sort of. At least it sounds catchy. But John, isn’t it a bit black and white to equate predicting major developments in society with very specific predictions on a very short time frame? Discerning trends and understanding cause and effects and what past and current policies will lead to is not an exact science. Sure, many things seem to be unknowable, at least with precise dates. Like Covid. And many predictions have been foolhardy, including my own for a Sept 2015 financial crisis. But asserting that (therefore?) everything in the future is unknowable? And undiscernable? I’m surprised that you are so black and white about this. That’s not usually like you. Are you a bit stuck in your old accounting mindset, that everything’s gotta be accurate and precise to be meaningful or useful? The world doesn’t work that way, John. Us geologists understand better that major trends and developments are much more about understanding probabilities, based on incomplete and often conflicting data, and subject to imprecise timings. Or is it that because you can’t be certain about much, that therefore no one else can be, either?
If you want a specific prediction: the 2008 crisis was never resolved, and will come back with a vengeance. Something that can’t go on, like piling on debt and printing money as if it doesn’t matter, will come to an end. Within two years? Dunno. Somewhere between “Perhaps” and “Likely”.
for all the good this discussion will do - we are just repeating ourselves.
your friend henk