Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Be skeptical about all the biological and genetic claims out there because they are all still theory. Also remember that the Nazis used similar arguments against the Jews. .
    You're right there, Mr Adlerian - thanks for the reminder. I must say I generally go for the "nurture" end of the "nature vs. nurture" debate - I guess its too easy to pick up a "gee wizz" fact from a pop psychology book and run with it.

    I'm not too happy with the word "morality" myself - perhaps "empathy" is the key point. Morality has too many religious connotations and seems to rest on a fear of punishment. And some things considered "moral", eg. the treatment of women in fundamentalist societies, just wouldn't come about if empathy was practised. But ideology comes into play - this person is "other" than me.

    As regards your analogy of the USA as a man defending a naked woman: first of all I'd advise her to stop taking such a passive stereotypical role and get her clothes back on - secondly I wonder what it is she represents. Is it the ideals of freedom and democracy the USA is founded on, (but then aren't they just a "fantasy" according to your arguments?) - or is it just material wealth? Then you've got to take a good hard look at where all that is coming from - as there's a whole load of other guys out there missing their women and thinking that America's taken them, or worse.

    Actually this analogy just makes it all sound as bad as it is - like some ghastly cartoon caveman show. Is this the kind of world we want? I think I'll carry on fantasizing ...

    Anyway - read Chomsky, folks!
    \" ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell


    • #17
      Hey nothing wrong with Chomsky! Its always good to get a different view of things.

      Frankly, I do view the world as a kind of tribal caveman show!
      The thing about America is that it was not planned. The whole thing evolved. Once the people that stumbled on to it discovered all of the natural resources and whatnot then they had to protect it. No one could, or can predict the best way to defend it, so I think that the most base and easiest methods are employed at times. Also, America has never experienced an invasion and I think that the powers what to keep it that way.
      After all of the heinousness in eastern Europe a few years ago I second that motion. Rape squads are not what I want to see working their way toward my apartment on Broad Street. This population can't even imagine that. Africa is another example, in some countries you get the choice of slavery, getting chopped to death, or becoming a Muslim! I think that a little ruthless behavior on our part is not so bad. I am happy about it---not really.


      • #18

        I've read a bit of Chomsky and although I think he is definitely concerned with ethics, I don't see it as coming from any religious context.

        I agree there is a danger is trying to establish universal norms - you only need to look at colonialism to see the effects of the European race thinking "it knows best", but some standards are needed to define basic human rights, such as the opportunity to live a life free from oppression, to reach your potential. I think that's the kind of thing Chomsky's trying to defend, not so much prescribing an entire set of morals. Without any reference points how can we condemn anything? And most of the time Chomsky is actually just applying the claimed morals of the western/industrialised world to its actual behaviour, showing up much hypocrisy in the process.


        • #19

          Oh and err, the subject matter shouldn't have read Hawkwind! It was in fact Chomsky I was talking about... :oops:


          • #20
            I just read my post and I think I should qualify my comment about colonism- I was specifically thinking of the missionaries here, who, although surely believed they were doing good spreading Christianity, were obviously destroying valid elements of these cultures. But the overall rationale behind colonialisation was obviously not moralistic (although this was used to justify exploitation, the natural subjugation of primitive peoples etc. ) but pragmatic... Anyway, hope that's clearer.

            My two bits.


            • #21
              How about this...

              Chomsky is someone who makes sense in this insane political system we have going. :?:
              \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
              Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview