OCTOBER 2005

AN EYE FOR AN EYE or AN EYE FOR AN 'I', AUTHORS AND EXECUTIONERS

Saturday, September 03, 2005

"According to rabbinic hermeneutics, solicitation—the wrestling of meaning from text—has to be done by people with ears and eyes on the look-out, attentive to the whole from which the excerpt is taken, open as well to life: the city, the street, other human beings…"Immanuel Levinas

By Ariella Atzmon© Sept 3rd.2005

“An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi)

‘An eye for an eye’ as a doctrine of punishment appears in ancient systems of law. We can find it in the Old Testament, in the jurisprudence of Babylon and in Islamic law. In Rome it was known as the "Lex Talionis” code of justice. Some relevant implications for contemporary politics and rhetorical conduct of deterrence can be revealed by deconstructing the meaning of the 'EYE FOR AN EYE' precept.

We have always been taught that the old biblical verse “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” presents a primordial mode of punishment which is endorsed and carried out by the most reactionary regimes. Oddly, the primordial 'eye for an eye' mode of punishment no longer is applied by non-western peoples, but rather has become the typical style of retaliation in societies which are considered to be neo-liberal democracies.The question to be asked is how it came about that this ancient imperative has been transformed into daily conduct for those who consider themselves liberal, enlightened, high-cultured and democratic regimes..  What are the rhetorical mechanisms that disguise the 'eye for an eye' retaliatory policy under propagandistic declarations such as the 'liberation' of the oppressed people of Iraq, or democratizing those who are 'abused' by theocratic fundamentalist regimes?Since we are conditioned to praise any occurrence and all policy in the course of democracy as right, while whatever is related to non-democratic regimes as totally evil, critical self-reflection on the scene of retaliation is needed. Given that speculations regarding overt political affairs remain locked in the shadow of a 'Black Box', the entire commitment to progress and rationality, as related to legal doctrines for punishment, should be critically analyzed.

In a short essay, "An Eye for an Eye,"[1] Immanuel Levinas(1990) the 'prophet of ethics' condemns Christian piety, magnifying non-resistance to evil. "Ah! The lex talionis, an eye for an eye. How much pious anger you generate in a world ruled only by kindness and love". In the name of Jewish wisdom Levinas attacks the exaltation of a superhuman and heroic life from which heart and pity must be banished. He locates this kind of inspiration in pagan traditions, in Machiavelli, or in Nietzsche. By tracing a message of universalism that describes the unity of mankind, Levinas expounds "one law for all is the latent wisdom that is hidden in the mysterious words."As violence calls for more violence, it is the mission of humanized justice to put a stop to what "once the evil has been committed." But how should this mission become real? And here comes Levinas with a twist that sounds odd and bizarre! In the name of the doctors of Talmud he blames western justice, based on 'peace and kindness' for the biased privileging of the rich! "It advantages those who can easily pay for the broken teeth, the gouged–out eyes and the fractured limbs..." He condemns the way fracture and outrage are "taken on a market value and are given a price" and thus "the world remains a comfortable place for the strong." Without blinking he reminds us about the biblical spirit of kindness, declaring that "if money or excuses could repair everything and leave us with a free conscience, the movement would be given a misinterpretation. Yes! eye for eye …… nor all the money in the world can heal outrage done to man… It is a disfigurement or wound that bleeds for all time as though it required a parallel suffering to staunch this eternal haemorrhage". By listening to the phrase "What appears to be cruel, seeks only justice" we may well wonder, was it enunciated by Levinas or by Shylock?[2]

Relying on the doctors of Talmud, Levinas places himself in the webs of Rabbinic tradition and Halachah law, grounded in the old Pharisee school. It is the version of Judaism where social justice and personal morality are equated. There is no conception of 'virtue' or 'duty' and no need for rational morality. There is only the fear of God as the patron of justice. So in favor of false Talmudic righteousness, Levinas closes his eyes to ethical judgment, as shuttered within a Black Box. By praising the rabbinic tradition that confuses morality with legalistic law, Levinas betrays humanism and exposes his behaviorist position.

When the eye for an eye is understood and materialized in concrete figurative terms, it implies a behaviorist positivist epistemology. The measure for measure mode of retaliation is a by-product of the correspondence theory of truth, namely, associating a name to a sensory data. The correspondence theory of truth dictates a clear-cut demarcation of the observational from the theoretical, and the behaviorist stance determines the superfluous status of theoretical speculations. Skinner, the originator of the behaviorist argument, refers to any theoretical outlook as sealed in a ‘BLACK BOX’. According to this view, since inventive interpretations are impenetrable to snooping, inquisitive investigation, any entity that can not be linked with sense data is doomed to be thrown out to the non-sense bin. The behaviorist argument asserts that if A leads to B and B leads to C, then A indirectly determines C and we can eliminate B. Therefore, if an explanatory theoretical terminology C link between initial input observables A and output factual data B, it is possible to skip C, as represented by a ‘Black Box’ and treat reality by exclusively using observable entities. Thus, when reality is supervised merely by evidential reports, the 'reporter' is released from referring to contextual notions of meanings in use. In a scene of retaliation, when there is a sequence of violent events which follow one after another, bypassing the stage of reflexive thought in the attempt to reveal the underlying linkage between the mutually destructive acts conforms with behaviorism. When a martyrdom act in Jerusalem is avenged by demolishing the family house, village or town of the perpetrator, skipping a phase of self-reflection regarding the original sins that lead up to the act, we are faced with crude behaviorism. Such devastating modes of retaliation are backed up by behaviorist propaganda that hinders people from interpreting the chain of events. All the input/output conditioning apparatus operated by the worst styles of brainwashing propaganda are grounded in behaviorism, namely: disclosing factual evidence and sealing theoretical speculation within a Black Box. We can scarcely find people who question the reasons why and how things started to deteriorate.. After the 7/7 London blasts, things are referred back to 9/11. Yet forms of political and economic control "terrorized nations and obliterate their power… "[3] had been in practice long before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. The nonchalant brainwashed mindset regarding the robbery of Third World people of their natural resources is symptomatic to behaviorist blindness. The corruption of believers’ lives by authoritarian secularism was going on long before the Twin Towers were crushed to dust.

The more we are flooded by facts and evidential reports, the more the Black Box shuts down. Since liberal democracy is conditioned to place its trust in scientific thought, the way to keep people in step with the system is to submerge them in streams of reports, surveys and poll results. The scientific envelope guarantees, in advance, the status of addressed messages, as if statements can be validated by correspondence only. Although justification by a coherent inference is closer to the nature of science, it is disregarded. And so, since science is presented as a perfect model for unbiased rational thinking, with the aim of protecting the social order, liberal education fixes the rules for how science should be presented to the public. Students are instructed to construct reality in terms of their own experience; it insists upon bridging the observational reports to empty abstract statements first, and to skip the notions given to words later. The distortion of peoples' minds towards facts is the great deceit of liberal education.
People were against the war on Iraq since there was no factual evidence regarding the existence of WMDs. But, even if some WMDs would have been found, was it still justified to impose democracy on people who had not asked for it? Are only 'responsible' western democratized states allowed to develop WMDs? Do Dresden and Coventry present us with evidential proof of responsible retaliatory conduct?But questioning the implications of the eye for an eye imperative as related to ethics is not a matter of concern for the westerners. In the legalistic public debate it is considered irrelevant.

The ambiguous double meaning of the 'Black Box' can be viewed as another deceptive rhetorical device. It is when besides the praise for rational scientific thought; obscure messages meant to implant fear from the shadowy Al Qaeda are disseminated. It is a double bind message that in the name of individual freedom of choice facilitates manipulation and control. 
Surprising? It is precisely in western regimes, where the political leader controls the 'Black Box' that we face distorted evidence and forged documents.:. The coalition had to invent the Iraq conflict “because Iraq was a test case…if we had backed away from that, we would never have been able to confront the threat in other countries where it exists,” Blair's speech to the British troops in Basra 4/1/04. Blair admits that the war against Iraq was just a warning. The crucial attempt, according to Blair, is “to get on top of the security situation”. Blair, Bush and Sharon start counting from the stage of being attacked, failing to recall their own offences. They punctuate starting points without responsibility for catastrophic endpoints. Ironically, this behaviorist epistemology also liberates their critics from digging into the Pandora's Box.  imprisonment, war theatricals of everykind came out of the Bbox.On the same day that Blair delivered his speech, Bin Laden, in an audiotape broadcast, declared the causes for past, present and future attacks on American, British or Israeli targets. “My message is to incite you against the conspiracies especially those uncovered by the occupation of the crusaders in Baghdad under the pretext of weapons of Mass Destruction, and also the situation in Jerusalem under the deception of the road map and the Geneva initiative.” According to the speaker, Middle Eastern issues are part of a religious and economic war in which the “Big Powers” are trying to control the region for its oil. Clearly we can point out who is talking in causal terms?

In the Judeo-Muslim world where democracy is rejected, the rhetorical game of persuasion is unnecessary. Therefore the ‘eye for an eye’ precept of retaliation is modified into an obscure mode of leaving the enemy blinded. The unidentified terrorists of Sept 11th, those who committed the massacre in Bali or Madrid, did not leave behind any clear explanation, written or broadcast. The vague messages distributed on the internet after the London bombs were another obscure reminder of Anglo-American and Zionist imperialism. Bin Laden, who is considered the one who arranged the Sept 11 attack, never openly admitted the attacks. The intelligence agencies are still shooting in the dark. The minute we acknowledge that all assaults on western trade and tourism sites were led by unknown groups in the name of ideas, then the way to deal with this trend of events is to start reflecting on the matter philosophically.It means paying attention to the obscure style of the delivered announcements; trying to infer why and how they cynically utilize western technology for their own means. The quality of the filming and sound, which are extremely poor, tell us how much they disregard the technology of photography. It is just the contrary to the thinking behind the London Metropolitan Police who appeal for mobile camera photos and other kinds of filming taken around the time of the blasts – in the attempt to solve the mystery. In the course of calculative investigation it is possible to identify those who carried out the attacks, while the detection of their sender continues to be a mission impossible. The disclosure of reasons and cause for the blasts remain enigmatic. I argue that the obscurity of the messages is a message in itself. It is a self-referential message!. Since filming is not a reproduction of reality but rather a simulated invention of the event, the videos do not pretend to bring out a clear documentary eligible for western analysts. It is an illustration of how the mode of delivering a message can be seen as a warning message to step back from behaviorist modes of thought, to revert and start searching into the 'Black Box'. Opacity stimulates fear of the unknown which is much more powerful than the pseudo-transparent messages declaring fortitude and self-determination.  Instead of being trapped again and again in a behaviorist chain of retaliation it should raise an awareness regarding the impossibility of representation. It is more than reasonable that the efforts of western intelligence agencies are still concentrated, around the clock, on identifying those responsible for the 9/11 event. But it is the philosophers' task to reflect upon the messages hidden in those left-behind video cassettes, the writers' duty to raise public awareness of the polyphony of meanings. It is difficult to articulate the attackers' intention in plain words. We can only guess! 

We may say that there is nothing wrong with techno-scientific thought. The problem is its arrogance which perceives all non-calculative modes of reasoning as inferior.Disabling the poetic aspect of the human brain, letting free only the digital façade, is the moment where humanism is totally subjugated to brutality.
Conforming with calculative thought, western rhetoric makes it imperative that only what is visible has an impact on the public. Since in democratic societies the next election is always just around the corner, any victory or failure has to be attached to immediate tangible proof. In cultures that are not obsessed by elections, maintained by rationality and freedom of choice, there is no pressure for a permanent supply of successful maneuvers. People accustomed to contemplative thought are not free of hatred, and yearning for vengeance. But the search for revenge can  wait till another epoch in time. The verse “Haste comes from the devil” portrays a different rhythm, not predisposed to calculative punctuation.   Contrary to western democracies where the ruler is entitled to provide retaliation in the time-range between two subsequent elections, people led by divine eternal power are never restrained by the limited human lifetime. In contrast to democratic rulers who strive against time to produce successful results, religious pundits guided by God’s will do not have to justify their deeds in reference to results but according to intentions. Digitalized western people who are unable to internalize a non-punctuated mental state, when defeated, crave for an 'eye for an eye' revenge. They can not delay their need for gratification. But philosophy, as the realm where human deeds should be ethically judged, should remove itself from actuality, keeping remote from that deceitful game.

To agree with Levinas on the point that the ‘eye for an eye’ phrase should be understood as the search for proportional justice, the questions to be asked are: How did it happen that the Anglo-Americans dumped the enlightened spirit of the Lex Talionis in favor of the 'Talmudic - Behaviorist wisdom' of interpreting the 'eye for an eye' precept literally? How did the biblical modes of Jewish retaliatory and deterrent conduct, which contradict the nature of justice, became the hallmark of western policy?How long can western rulers stay remote from the ethical aspect of the Lex Talionis - the principle of proportional justice, that the punishment should fit the crime no more, no less? How many eyes should be sacrificed for the one I?
NOTES:
[1] Emanuel Levinas (1990), Difficult freedom, Essays on Judaism, (London: THE ATHLONE PRESS)
[2]In their own way, Zionist follow the meandering treatise of Levinas thoroughly. But while Levinas insists on the Talmudic concrete 'measure for measure' mode of punishment, Zionist Jews are engaged in an endless search for documentary proof aimed at bringing the wrong into the marketplace, putting a price tag on executed parents, wives, husbands and children. Actually, Jews who are used to grounding their supreme identity in the wisdom of Talmudic scholarship substitute a monetary fine for suffering. Remember that the Zionists twice refuted Talmudic wisdom: first in the transfer agreements in 1933 legitimizing Hitler's regime, and later in legitimizing the new Germany in 1953, by signing the compensation agreement. Contrary to the old Jewish declaration "to blot out the name of Amalek", recalling God's war against those who symbolize the eternal enemy, from generation to generation, they keep on begging for financial compensation without quitting the urge for revenge.
[3] Mahmud Abouhalima in an interview with M Juergensmeyer in: M. Juergensmeyer, (2000), Terror in the Mind of God, University of California Press. P.60-9

posted by Dr. Ariella Atzmon©

A foolish old woman, wise in the ways of the world, comments on the above text:
By Jocelyn Braddell©

At the present time in France there is a lot of debate in regard to the battle in psychiatric theory and practice between the Freudians and the Behavioural Sciences. The investigative therapeutic treatment of the Freudians is challenged by the medical treatment and neurosciences of the Behaviourists. In this essay Professor Atzmon essentially steps into the fray and no doubt makes her mark there. However taken at face value (no pun intended!) without the above introduction this essay is created for a struggle and contest within Jewish political practice. Primarily I would like to enquire, is this a political document or a theory of personal enlightenment?This question is that to which I address my commentary.

'An eye for an eye' is essentially at root a personal doctrine. Therefore it is difficult to translate it straight to politics. So where do we look for a bridge to political policy here?Is the essence of modern political theory and practice a guide for progress away from such cycles of revenge by "primitive regimes" who are assumed to be always "reactionary"? Unfortunately in modern investigative terms the personal and professional structures of power have been unable to reveal any strengthening of pragmatically moderated or modern philosophical methods of regulating violence. Retaliation is still the name of the game along private power lines and it is becoming increasingly difficult to dissassociate personal revenge from "charismatic" political personalities, or matters of national security and party politics in general.

"Oddly, the primordial 'eye for an eye' mode of punishment no longer is applied by non-western peoples, but rather has become the typical style of retaliation"(Atzmon)
We are discussing here, however, the Jewish world that is not solely the State of Israel but also includes the entire diaspora of the tribes. Perceptibly one would have to understand a fairly condensed sketch of modern Jewish laws to move into the arena of Professor Atzmon's deconstruction of this old gnomic utterance to provide clear political distinctions, which I regretably cannot do. However it is necessary to first of all make clear that there is an on-going theoretical war in Europe on the matters under discussion - Freudian psychoanalysis versus medical mental health treatment - is the philosophical wrap for this essay.. That is, the experts of the Freudian and Laccan systems of psychotherapy are battling against modern medical theories and therapies . A recent newspaper article on this business quotes the Editor of a new book of essays Le Livre Noir de La Psychanalyse (The Black Book of Psychoanalysis), Catherin Meyer, who claims that Freudian techniques have retained credibility in France only because the generation of 1968 has raised them to the level of "untouchable dogma", The Essays are by many French intellectuals who are presently sceptics of the Freudian status quo and it is selling like hot cakes there, already in its second edition.

Prof. Atzmon studies the texts of the late Emmanuel Levinas for her context, which is also a concern relative to the on-going treatment of Palestinians and the political policies of the Israeli Government.. Levinas is an author who has influenced Jean Daniel in his recent book The Jewish Prison; A Rebellious Meditation on the State of Judaism.However to return to Levinas' essay"Eye for and Eye": Atzmon observes, from her perspective, that this primeval mode of revenge has become daily practice in liberal democracies.

Levinas using strong language evoking violence to present his argument, ensures that a reader retains the edict as a personal message of personal behaviour. The first touchstone, for an anarchist, could be to compare that with remarks made by a Labour Party politician escaping from his Party stronghold, he notes "the most significant thing about the Labour Party is that everyone in it hates everyone else." The competition for status, for having the touch for the Prime Minister, and fear for the threatening insecurity of deselection in any electoral campaign of the future essentially provokes this seemingly unlikely distortion of comradeship in office..For another example of the modern theory that is emerging, we have Europe's Commission President Barroso detailing that competition as the first rule in the game play of economic progress, above business and job stability. We are no longer to prepare for stability, only for change and diversity to challenge the economic threats of globalisation and other powerful national economies.

Competition is quite obviously the cause of the fighting instinct and if politically admirable in those circles in the present day - to what new mind-set do we have to attribute the present day withdrawal from the erstwhile detailed discussions and debate, that from ancient times were the special columns of support, for peace and understanding? Now we are confronted in our Western societies with all the defects of the blatant search for advantage or status that springs from purely individual ambition within the home,social life, the office and business deals, the political party and political practice. This is where the foolish egoism, that ego, that interior watchdog, that Freud invented, begins to rear an ugly head. For if a deal cannot be negotiated, or if the very concept of such settlements are lost, then revenge presents itself as the only method of making trouble public, and thus with a greater range of allies that you might then accumulate you can fight it out to the bitter end. Professor Atzmon's essay cleverly pinpoints all the above in philosophical terms and contributes to the debate in Europe's philosophical circles; taking one new step into the battle that principally rages among published documents in France.(The Behaviorists and the Freudians ranged on opposing sides.)

Professor Atzmon's idea of our mind-set is what I disagree with, if I have to. She maintains that as we are conditioned, that we are subject entirely to the above scenario."What are the rhetorical mechanisms that disguise the 'eye for an eye' retaliatory policy under propagandistic declarations such as the 'liberation' of the oppressed people of Iraq, or democratizing those who are 'abused' by theocratic fundamentalist regimes?(Atzmon)" But I would reply: What breakthrough from her belief in conditioning brought out such huge numbers of the international public in the Anti-War Movement, who have again this September, been on the streets marching and making speeches against the Gulf and Afghan wars and the Zionist military offensives in Palestine.. Atzmon's scenario of conditioning indeed reveals that it provides propaganda for pre-emptive action and /or victim "disguise" for those whose life has been invaded or individually down-graded... Well, this is her interpretation of Levinas who sets the Jew in a Rabbinic net of entanglement, where ethical judgement is avoided; Levinas indeed by using these words "one law for all is the latent wisdom that is hidden in the mysterious words(Atzmon)", indicates that his own bias is a method that is related to myth and the poet and thus indisputable in a canon of judiac authority.Thus, also with the Behaviour's mode of action, mystery as statistic is the element of unapproachable fact is retained in the behaviourists "Black Box" . The victory in this battle might conclude in disabling the theories and practice of Lacan's disciples and the Freudians and see investigative psychiatry rooted out in favour of medical chemical treatments. A very serious and thought provoking problem of human trust and resillience dispensed with for chemical therapies that are dependent on accurate research in the neuro-sciences.

How does Professor Atzmon contradict the Behaviourists in her text, suggesting by reference to our conditioning the crux of her conflict? Does she serve warning or place thought detonators under our suppine mentally stagnant pools of thought?

Unfortunately for Behaviourist philosophers, just as they choose to forget or repress the fact that natural mental activity incurs imaginative causal and effect procedures that prepare a path to truth, their dictat is purely mechanical and does not contain that lure Levinas resorts to like all effective priests; the lure that each individual contains that mystery of wisdom that can be expressed in every facet of life only through immense skill and constant integrity. Levinas if you ask me is a better proposition, even if he is also now tainted with certain Behaviourist concepts. He does allude to the personal altruism of those who believe they have escaped "conditioning" , who move on into life as creative artists or dreamers, or even philosophers! Levinas, regretably no longer alive, unable to accept or refute the Black Box element that Atzmon has plunged him in, certainly has a strong bias against the Samaritain ethics and would even like to return to the orthodox vows of poverty to relieve humanity from the elitism of the rich that is the consequence of their axioms of morality(Does he imply a Freemasonry, of christian and jewish negotiation?) God rules.

Thus we come to the consequences of perspectives for thoughtful people. Either we are going to be constrained by a polarised opposition between mystery and plain fact, or are we perhaps going to find another path, or paths, to peace and understanding?

The question to be asked is how it came about that this ancient imperative has been transformed into daily conduct for those who consider themselves liberal, enlightened, high-cultured and democratic regimes..(Atzmon)

Prof.Atzmon goes on to deconstruct black box mythology by alluding to its message that is tied up to AlQuaeda, (an organisation that was constructed by Mossad by all accounts on the truthseeking internet.ed.JB) That is, Al Quaeda's message provokes fear,that enables a position of power. But here again in Atzmon's argument we are tied up between strands that equate the reader on one hand with all people, and on the other with the unsettled turbulence of the international political world that has politically committed itself to war in action against Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda cannot be defined, it is a mystery organisation, either as suggested above, the creation of Mossad, or a group, the result of strategic moves taken by the Americans during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, or yet again the Wahabi movement of religious fundamentalists.

The information that is emitted from parliament to the citizens, investigations and speculative spin that surrounds these serious violent events, 9/11 and the London bombs , is constructed in such a manner to ensure confusion and argument that will provoke conspiracy theories not only about about Arabs but also about the Secret Services of the UK and USA governments alike.She attributes error also to the confusion over camera records of the public in England. Although we know the English surveillance cameras in London malfunctioned, we know also that the English cameras represent 20% of the world's governments spying panoramas.The UK citizen is under the greatest photographic surveillance in the world. We understand now, especially from the variously altered stories on the time lines around the Brazillian Menzes death and in the USA the Danziger Bridge deaths of five repair men in New Orleans, that UK and USA governments believe that our ideas of what is real investigative progress can be frightened off, or stupidly gell with just any information we are given, lies of all kinds mixed with a modicum of objective realities.

"The minute we acknowledge that all assaults on western trade and tourism sites were led by unknown groups in the name of ideas, then the way to deal with this trend of events is to start reflecting on the matter philosophically."(Atzmon) this sentence seems to sink from the level of her acute observations to a level of banality.Alternatively Professor Atzmon,is it not possible that we begin to think philosophically because we are mourning the dead? Who gives a shit about trade and tourism except the actual corporations and rich stockholders?. Philosophy is innate from childhood hiding behind all questions. Doubt must surely be rendered by serious implications where a trustworthy witness provides us with truthful observations for answers.

We know that both military and government advisers, trained in psychiatry, are taking part with their advice on general public trends and responses, endured under both this political violent crisis and the normal crime that has become part and parcel of western life.. This gives rise to an abstention of discussion amongst people "on the street", meanings become contrived because individuals do not wish to reveal ignorance and now there is the additional tide in public opinion from searches of internet sites.

It is certainly true that internet forums could be rewarding but they got off to such a bad start of banality that continues, and is even profiled by newspapers like The Guardian to this day. I sent Prof.Atzmon's text to a jewish acquaintance who merely replied "She is chosen so what more does she want." Horrified by this I suggested to another friend that it was not quite wise to open up philosophical debate by "blogging" to careless public comment - though ofcourse this casual remark comes under the gaesa of Levinas himself - ie. that the philosopher should be attentive to both the city and the street, to all human beings.("According to rabbinic hermeneutics, solicitation—the wrestling of meaning from text—has to be done by people with ears and eyes on the look-out, attentive to the whole from which the excerpt is taken, open as well to life: the city, the street, other human beings…"Immanuel Levinas) The bloggers "comment" holograph is a chance for personal discussion, and with luck we each manage to avail of some for the melding of more optimistic ideas than either the abrasive factions of our Freudian egos or our black box behaviours.

Is a blog worthy of philosophic stances? Well what is worthy? We are judged on our temperate moods, and our kalaedescopic moods of emotion and control. Why should judgement prevail in a vaccum like the internet, when it must be used unequivocally by the thoughtful, for whom criticism is an element of learning. It is our judgements that compress, or repress or evacuate our conscience! Philosophy contributes to every professional way of life a moderation of self-referencing that is becoming more and more essential if our actions shall define our history. Truth follows a devious path as novelists have revealed for more than a century. Whether philosophy will ever reach or ever display a political truth that can guide the public we do not yet know. In England Robin Cook presented the greatest potential for such progress and the modern ground swell toward that hope was surely caused by Mow Mowlem. Now that these two people have died the vacuum in the UK is awsome. If the media and television, which are required to give one third of their time to European news material, ever fulfilled that brief, we might find groupings of individuals whose judgements we could join and respect - as those of Anthony Coughlan here in Ireland, but our knowledge is empty. Language problems and inhibited translation rights (for commercial purposes) impede our information.

Professor Atzmon discusses the Gulf War and quotes Blair's speech in Basrah 4/1/04
The coalition had to invent the Iraq conflict “because Iraq was a test case…if we had backed away from that, we would never have been able to confront the threat in other countries where it exists,” (Atzmon)Do we thus have to accept that the political drive for global national democracies, that has driven a remorseless challenge and example over Afghanistan and Iraq, intends to careen forward with tanks and bombs in eternal wars that can only inevitably ensure that such an aggressive phrase as "an eye for an eye" becomes widespread and drives all mankind to ruin.

Students are instructed to construct reality in terms of their own experience; it insists upon bridging the observational reports to empty abstract statements first, and to skip the notions given to words later. The distortion of peoples' minds towards facts is the great deceit of liberal education.(Atzmon) Educated by my own self except for the miserable upper-class boarding school experience of England, I am not too sure what is a liberal education.An education that is not truly disciplined? An education that has not had the driving force of disadvantage or even poverty overuling its methods? .

It is always difficult to read new philosophic material but the search for truth is becoming an everyday and insistent matter. Truth is evasive as we all know. Self-reference to memories and its voids are permanent reminders that we are in part dominated by personal evaluation and fears..(the ego). But Truth is a variable factor that we must seek consensus on if we are to prevent this world from going down into a blackhole of demographic wars over water, wine or men and women. Prof.Atzmon writes superb strong statements throughout her argument: The rampant deception about profound Jewish scholarship is prevalent among Jews. The glamorous tradition of scholarship is actually a learning by rote of piles upon piles of rules as related to the Jewish law. Judaism is a religion where man in relation to God, is conceived in legalistic terms, where the ethics are equated with obedience and fear of God. There is no theology in Judaism.(Atzmon)Of course immediately the Islamic mirror of Muslim studies comes to mind. Meeting Middle Eastern people and becoming familiar with their manners of thought is difficult. Talking to some Jews is exciting because of their wonderful ability for spontaneous thought. Is this an escape mode from the vice of rules?. It is noticeable too, that the long study, detailed as it must be for the young to be sure to memorise it, has an effect on conversational thought that I would happily describe as "the thunderstorm". These people place their concentration on the matter in hand in a manner that could be described as complete absorbtion, and then they suddenly erupt with fascinating reactive thoughts pouring on to the wavelength. One of the most happy and life-saving periods of my life was in conversation for several months with a jewish writer who had a strong attachment to laughter. Laughter in all its variables from self condemnation to self conceit, from acerbic observation to a charming joyfulness.A friend of Paddy Kavanagh's, no less.

All the input/output conditioning apparatus operated by the worst styles of brainwashing propaganda are grounded in behaviorism, namely: disclosing factual evidence and sealing theoretical speculation within a Black Box. We can scarcely find people who question the reasons why and how things started to deteriorate.(Atzmon)I cannot agree with generalisations like this; people  grow up in an environment largely empty of political considerations, and the enquiring mind is stifled in nurseries and schools because there are never enough staff to work with the children either in small groups and never as individuals.The Behavioural sciences essentially contrive to speculate on the human condition as a kind of motorised computer, so I think that possibly the condemnation we read here of both educational and socially liberal societies is not well founded, as the science that is part and parcel of the Black Box theory is mostly concerned with chemical medical treatments for the mind. It is true that the quirks of human nature and behaviour are under suspicion from these schools of thought, but if we look to cancel research of certain kinds, how can we complain if Freud's theories, that are proving to arouse modern skepticism, quite liberally fail completely to save so many human minds from a living hell, that the medicines in our doctors Black Boxes achieve.

Contrary to western democracies where the ruler is entitled to provide retaliation in the time-range between two subsequent elections, people led by divine eternal power are never restrained by the limited human lifetime.(Atzmon) The essential separation between the individual politician and the general public is clearly illustrated here. Wait, wait!!Taken out of context again!, I can hear my readers claim. But there are too many codicils that conduct social life, not just one element in the mind that needs a religious view. May I repeat, is it not possible that many of us begin to think philosophically only because we are mourning the dead? Both the church and politicians have been reading psychological tracts and taking psychologist's advice since 1960-70s directly they realised the world population was expanding and would present a problem.This is not a small war between philosophers, Behaviorists and Freudians. But as you, Professor Atzmon,already clearly see, the public are suffering and enduring - could you see your way further, to projecting philosophy on you Blog to a much wider audience?

The essence and power of a blog, when it is true to the definitions of itself as a subjective diary and analysis of an individual's cultural or political, or in this case philosphic choices, has the potential for appraisal by a wide audience. That is, once it has been established in the cultural sphere to which it belongs where the surf-mechanics of search will give choice a helping hand.

And as to your question"How did the biblical modes of Jewish retaliatory and deterrent conduct, which contradict the nature of justice, become the hallmark of western policy?(Atzmon)It would be interesting indeed to see this discussed in a forum where people are truly seeking a human endeavour within themselves to come to terms with one or either side of the Palestinian problem. As it is the Bible that is constantly held up as the founding history of the Israel State, a nation that was created by an equal violence to that which is presently adopted by the descendents of Moses, we have to acknowledge that the Arabs, who only had in modern times peace during the tolerant Turkish Ottoman period, have been quite tragically subject to appalling wars for centuries. The insane crusaders (reading about the horrors of crusader brutalities would certainly convince one of their mental instability, see :Andrew Wheatcroft Infidels, a Penguin publication),And since then the mercenary wars of tricks, deceit and outright violence by the English, the French, the Nazis, the Japanese, and now the new powerful technical evils of nthe "terror"wars have been unleashed by undisciplined armies, the Israelis and the Americans.When the first translations of the Bible were made available to the ordinary congregations of the church those war-grafted and unforgiving texts were used throughout the British Isles as an educational reading manual.But also, of course, in the present context of Atzmon's theory, the Jews are really just the same as everybody else as Adam Schatz recently remarked in the New York Review of Books.

The military losses and errors of WorldWarOne led to the military Revenge of the British in WorldWarTwo. That is clear. Also the British had a reason to hide from the public why they went to war (WW1) in the first place, so that the actual victories and the loss of the British colonies, would not be seen until now, that we begin to succesfully analyse all the frightful results, to have been a German victory!!! The "moral imperative" is the same propaganda today for the Italians, the Polish, the British and any European nation sporting violent armies as allies for George Bush, for they must hide from themselves that they are of no great stature in the world anymore.As a philosophic friend assures me," Everything that goes around comes around."

Jocelyn Braddell ©21st September,2005.