Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!arms-d From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.5 Message-ID: <8601080115.AA00751@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601080115.AA00751 Posted: Tue Jan 7 17:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 03:24:06 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 202 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 7, 1986 5:50PM Volume 6, Issue 12.5 Today's Topics: See #12.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 13:49:39 EST From: Bruce Nevin Subject: cybernetic process What I was describing was a process of communication and metacommunication that has been intensively studied and is well documented. The particular message content that I chose for my example (`War is obsolete', borrowed virtually without comment from the Beyond War people) was not the point of the example. `Sociobabble' seems to me just an insult, pure and simple, all metamessage and no message. I suggest you learn something about cybernetic explanation (Bateson, Watzlawick, Pask, and the rest) before cavalierly dismissing it as a kind of cute bastard cousin of `psychobabble' (another empty derogative). Opinionated language helps no one. As to my attitude about the `war is obsolete' slogan: as a slogan, it appears pretty effective. I believe it is a true assertion as well, and for pretty much the same reasons that you have given, given a broad enough definition of the `cost' of war: the `cost' is too high. I agree with you that more refined alternatives will replace war, Indeed, they have been replacing warfare for some time. These include not only terrorism, but also more subtle and effective means of economic and political coercion and `persuasion'. Kwitney's _Endless_Enemies reviews `our' use of some of these more refined alternatives. My point was that the process of communicating in the way I described was in many ways more important than the specific content at any given time. This is because the process itself conveys metacommunication about willingness to communicate, etc., and can be made to convey metamessages that can lead to `back door' agreement about such things as the fact that war is obsolete. Bateson's studies of animal communication are instructive here. The only way a dog can communicate that it is not going to attack another dog is to initiate an attack and then not in fact attack. Animals lack means to communicate negation except thus ostensively. This is evidently the evolutionary origin of such behavior as smiling, laughter, and play. It is why dogs (and the new kid on the block) must fight before they can be friends. Nations are stuck in the position of animals, lacking a way to communicate a negative other than ostensively. In the case of nations, NOTHING ELSE CAN BE CONVINCING. What this means is that treaties and agreements are effective only as part of a more comprehensive process that demonstrates intention rather than just talking about it. I believe this is pretty familiar ground in international relations studies. Bruce ------------------------------ Subject: Congressional lying Date: 07 Jan 86 10:35:33 PST (Tue) From: foy@aero Jim Miller is one of the few people who sees that it is we the people who create the lying by our elected leaders. When and if more of us recognize this perhaps the effectiveness of lying will become obsolete. ------------------------------ Subject: KAL007 Mission Date: 07 Jan 86 10:30:21 PST (Tue) From: foy@aero Michael Joseph Edelman states that there is no concievable mission that the KALoo7 could have accomplished that could not have been accomplished better{ by other craft... How about a mission to determine if it is possible for a civilian aircraft to overfly Soviet military installations.? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 12:26:46 PST From: ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To arms-d-request (mod.politics.arms-d moderator) Subject: Beyond War Policy Requires International Force > Armies are needed because war is an practiced method of resolving > international conflict. ... If > playing GO were, then both sides would have GO players. This is a false analogy, and a rather naive position. An expert GO player is of no value in a non-GO conflict resolution context. The same cannot be said about armies. In a world of doves, a hawk has a tremendous advantage, a go expert does not. Does this inescapable fact prohibit any long term global non-violent conflict resolution strategy? I think (hope) not. Fortunately, we have a few successful models to study and emulate. The United States (among others) is a country subdivided into regions, where each region possesses some autonomy. When conflicts occur, individual states do not raise armies and fight. At worst, Wisconsin might sneer across the lake and say "Your upper peninsula?? See you in court!!". The federal government would not tolerate inter state fighting, and it has the power to prevent this. This, I think, was the primary point of the PBS series on war. Without an international agency to settle conflicts and prevent inter country war (by force), wars are inevitable. Nations must be willing to give up control of their military, trusting an international organizationn consisting of representatives from each country. Of course, individual veto power would be (is) absurd. Majority, or 2/3 majority should be enough to cause this international agency to take interventionist actions, including nuclear demonstrations if necessary. Yes, trusting such an agency would be risky, but not as risky as the current arms race. Some have said the "beyond war" supporters are naive. I might agree (partially). Their goal is essential to long term survival, but the "no more wars" policy must be an international law, enforced and unopposable by any individual country. Best of luck to us all. karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad ------------------------------ Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 16:23:21 EST From: Paul Dietz Subject: cybernetic process I'm sorry if "sociobabble" was insulting. Take it to mean that I found your note delivered little information to me; this may be the fault of the receiver. Try using small words with us laymen, ok? I agree that "war is obsolete" is a slogan. Effective slogan? What is trying to accomplish -- make itself true? I don't see how the slogan can have any effect on that. I am disturbed by your assignment of individual properties to collectives; i.e., nations. It is imprecise and misleading to assert that nations communicate, have intentions, can be harmed, or perform actions (unless these terms are redefined to be quite different from their usual meanings when applied to individuals). Serious error may result from this kind of confusion; for example, to assert that nuclear war will harm a nation, therefore the nation will not initiate it. In fact, the nation isn't the actor initiating the war; one or more individuals in the government are, and their best interest might be served by a war. ------------------------------ Subject: WWI,WWII & Beyond War Date: 07 Jan 86 09:07:29 PST (Tue) From: foy@aero Jim McGrath states ... like it or not.. on the battle field we don't have a chance to turn the other cheek... I don't recall any of my postings saying one should turn the other cheek. Of course one does have a chance of turning the other cheek on the battle field. One must of course recognize that the probable consequences are that one would be killed. It seems to me that many people don't want to recognize that there are a number of uderlying motivations in operation in battle. Fear or the drive for self preservation is one. Psyiologically it is related to an increase in the flow of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Another is related to the flow of nor-epinephrine. The emotion involved is more that of excitement. It is associated with a desire to identify with the group and to be important to the group and to protect the group. The group may be kin, friends, tribe, clan, nation, gang, family or any other group that one perceives as important. A friend of mine who was a bombadier in WWII clearly indicated that for him (and probably for most air crews) the group that he was fighting for was the air crew. In the Beyond War orientation they show historical films related to battle. They show the leaders discussing how new weapons are too horrible to use. They show the soldiers being led into the charge with the martial music playing. Then they show the soldiers falling like blades of grass. The thing that I found interesting, is that in spite of my current attitudes about war, that when the martial music was playing I felt the same excitment that I felt during various moments in WWII. I recommend the book "The Caveman & the Bomb Human Nature,Evolution, & Nuclear War" by David Barash & Judith Eve Lipton for those who want to learn more about the emotions and genetic drives related to war. Those who are Creationists and those who are convinced that more weapons lead to more security in todays world probably would not find it interesting. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************