Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko
From: blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Who is a Jew
Message-ID: <679@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Aug-84 22:01:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: rochester.679
Posted: Thu Aug  9 22:01:19 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Aug-84 00:37:54 EDT
References: <253@fisher.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 76


	Mr. Martillo is by far the most arrogant individual I have yet
	run into on this net. He has stated that my disagreement with
	his views DISQUALIFIES me from any input on Jewishness. When
	all those who are deserving of such disqualification are
	eliminated, only those who agree with Martillo will be left.
	(By the way, all of you who feel I ought to be disqualified
	need not read this)

Well, I think I understand your reaction, but I might suggest a
different context in which you might interpret the comments.

Martillo has several time made comments which, I think, reveal his real
view of the world. The most recent I can recall was the statement that
he could not understand why the media referred to Diane Feinstein, the
mayor of San Francisco, as Jewish.

This might, on the one hand, be taken as an objection to the media's
applying that label. In fact, I think it reflects that fact that
Martillo really does not understand why they identify her that way.

In his "attacks", Martillo follows a consistant pattern: group A
incorrectly concludes P, hence they are either ignorant or lacking of
firm moral character. What he means is that he disagrees with P, so
that members of A are either ignorant of the facts (Martillo's
premises) or indisposed to engage in the rigorous discipline of a
(Martillo's) reasoning process.

I claim that, whatever facts are agreed upon, Martillo's method of
reasoning is not the same as everyone else's, and he is unwilling to
acknowledge that there exists any other reasoning process. And that
seems like a very rigid, dogmatic view for him to assume.

He is, it has been pointed out, consistant. That consistancy can be
illuminating of his view, and several readers, as it happens, have
expressed the sentiment that it is a worthwhile thing for his viewpoint
to be represented.

The arrogance arises not from his expressing his viewpoint, but from
his rigid assumption that all worthy persons must use his method of
reasoning, so that people who disagree with him must be, as mentioned
above, either ignorant or (for a variety of reasons he is willing to
suggest) unwilling to reason.  This dismissal of other peoples' ability
to reason competently, as you observe, is not a good basis for an
amicable exchange.

It is clear Martillo comes from a different culture than I come from.
His approach seems very rigid and dogmatic, and to have as a primary
impetus the maintenance of cultural identity.  For him to do otherwise,
he has said, would reflect weakness in his culture.  I don't know if he
does embody its values (i.e., is a successful product of his
upbringing).  If so, I would certainly question his assertions about
the strength of its intellectual tradition (yet can certainly
understand why he makes them :-)).

No one knows what the future course will be, or can be, for this world
in which an increase in cross-cultural contact appears unavoidable,
which is not to say it is a unique, new phenomenon.  The assimilation
Martillo opposes seems like a likely candidate.  But it may be that the
old rules, that the strong will conquer, dominate, and multiply, are
immutable -- in which case Martillo may have the key to survival.

I do find it striking, though, that the greatest atrocities of our
(western) civilization may be attributed to the rise of precisely the
kind of strong cultural identity Martillo adopts.  Perhaps Martillo
feels that it was the failure of other groups to be equally vigorous
that permitted these excesses to occur.  It's unclear to me that we can
continue to think about things that way.

Anyhow, best to prepend to each of his postings the sentence fragment
"It is consistant with the training of Martillo that ".  If one party
is unwilling to respect the other's ability to contribute, you haven't
much of a discussion.  For my part, I think Martillo's attitude/policy
in dealing with others is, at best, an indictment of his own position.

	Tom