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