DWill,

why are you quoting pg 419 in your signature?

Well, I certainly think he's right about the arcane part. His explanation has that elaboration that's typical for him. And it is an academic discussion that doesn't pretend to focus on the painfulness of that incident or any other. I don't know if you want to discuss the essay in depth or you just want to protest that he didn't use the occasion to show proper respect for the victims. It does seem to me that there could be a link to Christian ethics, which doesn't recommend unthinkingly lashing out in revenge and which might encourage use of the kind of moral imagination Wright is telling us about.

As for what else besides my quote is on page 419, oh come on! In case you're wondering, I haven't trained my memory as did the guy who wrote the book you told us about.

The statement on p. 419 just appealed to me as pretty significant, that's all. When we remain controlled by our pre-wired impulse to view those who are culturally "other" as also morally lower that we, we can't sympathize and so miss out on the opportunity to learn something valuable (to us) about why they feel or act as they do. You need to keep this ethic or attitude separate from the ways we can justifiably react when crimes have been committed against us.

Wright sums up his argument in the link I posted:

"This excerpt is a chapter that comes near the end of the book, after I’ve made an argument that, at the risk of oversimplification, boils down to this: In general, when a religious groups sees its relations with another religious group as non-zero-sum, it is more likely to evince tolerance of that group’s religion. When the perception is instead of a zero-sum dynamic, tolerance is less likely to ensue."

Wright makes many good points in the essay and I don't really have a problem with what he says. We have a natural distrust of foreigners and, as Wright says, we see a steady stream of negative images in the media. It's going to be very difficult to see the other side as human to the point of showing tolerance, although most of us understand that 9/11 was committed by terrorists who don't represents all of the Muslim world. Perhaps the biggest hurdle, however, is that our economic/cultural differences will always make it difficult for us to see eye to eye. And ultimately it might be easier to hate them. One might also make the argument that the Islam religion is not very tolerant of other viewpoints. If the majority of Muslims see westerners as infidels, I'm not sure there will be many opportunities to forge non-zero-sum relationships. Then again, not coming together doesn't seem a very viable option.

'oh come on' nothing, I wanted to know the attraction of the phrase to you. A few months ago, in some thread, I kept getting people talking about empathy. This seems along the same line though I don't quite get it. Especially after reading page 419 and the online Appendix. I am not sure why the appendix was online, it wasn't that long. As for the academic slant, I don't have much patience for it either because it is bogus; Is the US to blame? What about Spain, or Britain, or Scotland, or France, or ...? The people to blame are the terrorists who plan and carryout attacks that kill innocent people. I was no fan of the book prior to the online appendix which I had not reviewed before. Wright sure seems to be skirting very close to the blame America line.

stahrwe wrote:'oh come on' nothing, I wanted to know the attraction of the phrase to you. A few months ago, in some thread, I kept getting people talking about empathy. This seems along the same line though I don't quite get it. Especially after reading page 419 and the online Appendix. I am not sure why the appendix was online, it wasn't that long. As for the academic slant, I don't have much patience for it either because it is bogus; Is the US to blame? What about Spain, or Britain, or Scotland, or France, or ...? The people to blame are the terrorists who plan and carryout attacks that kill innocent people. I was no fan of the book prior to the online appendix which I had not reviewed before. Wright sure seems to be skirting very close to the blame America line.

When the answer Wright gives to the question "Is the U.S. to blame for the 9/11 attacks/" is "No, with an asterisk," is that equivalent in any way to "yes"? What I hear you saying is that discussing the larger issue of Western/Muslim relations is somehow the same as blaming our side for crimes committed by Muslims, and I don't get that.

It occurred to me that you think I adopted that signature line specifically to endorse what you think is a "blame the U.S." line of Wright's. Say it ain't so.

DWill wrote: When the answer Wright gives to the question "Is the U.S. to blame for the 9/11 attacks/" is "No, with an asterisk," is that equivalent in any way to "yes"? What I hear you saying is that discussing the larger issue of Western/Muslim relations is somehow the same as blaming our side for crimes committed by Muslims, and I don't get that.

Please don't leave off the important part of the quote, the qualifier. Wright actually say, "The short answer is no. But it's a "no" with an asterisk, a "no" in need of elaboration - and since the elaboration is a bit arcane, I've relegate it to an online appendix."[TEoG page 419]

What elaboration. The answer is NO without the need for elaboration. Now, if Wright or anyone else wishes to discuss the environment which breeds terrorists fine, but do it outside the context of assigning blame on the victims.

DWill wrote:It occurred to me that you think I adopted that signature line specifically to endorse what you think is a "blame the U.S." line of Wright's. Say it ain't so.

No, I did not and do not think you are endorsing a, 'blame America' philosophy. Whether Wright supports that or not is not so clear to me. My actual interest was if it had something to do with the empathy issue from prior discussions.

stahrwe wrote:As for the academic slant, I don't have much patience for it either because it is bogus; Is the US to blame? What about Spain, or Britain, or Scotland, or France, or ...? The people to blame are the terrorists who plan and carryout attacks that kill innocent people. I was no fan of the book prior to the online appendix which I had not reviewed before. Wright sure seems to be skirting very close to the blame America line.

But Wright doesn't blame America for 9/11. He says "No with an asterisk." Wright's explanation is shades of gray, and you're looking for black and white.