<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=Windows-1252 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16625"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; WORD-WRAP: break-word; PADDING-TOP: 15px; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Without really wanting to turn this into a protracted
debate, I find that like many discussions on this and other lists the thread has
taken on a life of its own and no longer bears any real tangible relationship to
the contents of the original posts that initiated the thread.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>For starters, I never said or implied that education or
information has<STRONG><EM><U> NO</U></EM></STRONG> effectiveness in
changing public opinion; I did say that I did not think that "education" alone
was not a very effective tool and that I felt that its efficacy is over-rated
and not significant in the scheme of things. Of course, there may have
been instances in history where education, information, and changes in
theoretical and philosophical thought and in cultural beliefs have altered
behaviors and courses of action' but these instances are not routine, frequent,
or the norm unless one considers considers "revolutions in thought and
practices" as being any change, modification, alteration, or reform to be
revolutionary; and one does not restrict the notion to those changes which are
radical paradigm shifts which change the core presuppositions and premises upon
which the system of established thought and practices are based.
Obviously, I consider only the latter to be revolutionary and instances of
critical thinking educating and furnishing information that serves as an agent
of effective change. Reform in peripheral non-constitutive structural and
substantive elements of or in a paradigm or system, in my opinion, comprise
relatively insignificant - although not always inconsequential - changes or
modifications rather than radical or revolutionary changes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Secondly, I have lost the original emails that started
the thread, but I believe that I was not the first one to use the term
"brainwashing" but merely used it because it was used in the original
postings. It is a term that I typically do not use because I feel it has
little real meaning in most of the instances where it has been used. To
me, it suggests the complete deletion of all previous ideas, values, beliefs,
and norms from a subjects mind and the replacement of those contents with new
contents which the subject then dogmatically, fanatically, and uncritically
accepts without any question as unproblematic. In responding to the
suggestion that the masses have been "brainwashed" by the corporate
establishment and media, I noted that I did not think it was as clear cut
as an issue of mere "brainwashing" but that it was more complex than that.
Furthermore, it was Stuart, I believe, who employed the terms, "education" and
"educating" and said: </FONT><FONT face=Calibri>"Well, we're all products of our
education, right? Why shouldn't anti-war group </FONT><FONT
face=Calibri>participate in educating the population?" It was vague and
ambiguous to me as to how general his use of the notion of "education" was
intended to be in his exposition. I noted that I felt that the so-called
process of "education" and "educating" taken generally was a much broader and
informal process than formal education, public relations and advertising
propaganda, media presentations, etc. I also noted that - if we are
all products of our education, if the current education of the public is
propagandistic and/or ideologically based brainwashing, and if anti-war groups
have a right to and should participate in "educating the public" - I was at
a loss as to how to differentiate between why the establish version of educating
was a form of brainwashing or propaganda and the anti-war version of educating
would not be, how they differed in their nature, intent, and purposes. It
appears to me that you and the others who have responded are using the notions
of "education," "educating," and "brainwashing" in a very different way than I
and that your use revolves around the idea of formal institutional notions of
education and the postulated abstract ideals of the goals and purposes
of the formal institutional educational processes and around a view of
brainwashing as being identical to ideological propagandizing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>As for your question, </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> Have you personally never changed your opinions via
increased information and study— "brainwashing"," yes I have. But
the times that it has involved a drastic, radical, constitutive, revolutionary
change or involved a paradigm shift in thought and behavior are rare and far
between - mostly the changes that took place were minor modifications and
alterations within the established and accepted paradigm that I was socialized
into. It was analogous to accepting the premises without any radical
calling of them into question and treating them as problematic that one
should get and needs to get the certification of a college degree to
survive in this society and restricting ones decisions and actions to questions
of what the degree should be in and where one should get it which might change
with the acquisition of new information while the presupposition that the
college degree was desirable and necessary never underwent any changes because
of new information in part because it was never called into question.
Again, I never said that radical revolutionary shifts in paradigms was
impossible or that such revolutionary changes did not take place. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">As for it being "brainwashing," that depends
on how you define it; but I suppose it was a form of "brainwashing." I
never said that I was exempt from brainwashing or what others have been
subjected to or influenced by. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>>You seem to imply that there are no valid standards
in choosing one argument against another, that all arguments are equivalent in
their effectiveness to convince an audience, that all argumentation is
"brainwashing". I cannot believe it, and neither do you, for you indeed write to
enlighten your audience just so by argumentation. i.e.,
education. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Here I know that my views are in conflict with yours and
those of most others in this society and that, being in the minority, there is
little point in rehashing the points of my underlying philosophical
position. Let's just say that I believe valid standards that you
suggest for deciding the validity of arguments, facts, effectiveness, and
usefulness are defined by and within, have meaningfulness and significance
within, and are acceptable and valid within the context and parameters of a
given system of thought and that systems of thought are themselves
grounded in and bounded to philosophical positions which are culturally
dependent and relative. Thus the valid theorems of Euclidian Geometry may
not hold or be valid within non-Euclidian geometry; what is logical within one
system of logic may not be within another. What is valued and accepted
theories and methods practiced as meaningful in one culture may not be viewed or
hold the same position in another. Western culture values and accepts
Western notions of science and the scientific method; but other cultures may not
and have not. They have their own notions of science and scientific
method, which Western science and scientists have ridiculed and dismissed.
But for these other cultures, worldviews as to the workings of the cosmos and
what comprise facts and valid factual realities may be and often were quite
different from what they are for contemporary Western cultures. The
Trobianders did not have lineal notions of reality and causality; such things
were not only alien to their way of thinking but irrelevant to their way of life
and of no practical significance in their society. In their systems of
thought, western standards of validity had no meaning and made no sense.
Does that mean that they were ignorant, primitive, unknowledgeable, wrong
headed, irrational, etc.?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>In the end, it just may be the case that all
argumentation is "brainwashing" in that it seeks to replace one set of
understandings and beliefs with another</FONT> <FONT face=Calibri>as being
the valid factual truth that one should take and treat as unproblematic and not
call into question. Ultimately, we accept even the valid standards of proof as
articles of faith (how do you prove that the laws of probability in theory or in
practice are operating in any given instance or even the probability that the
laws of probability are functioning without resorting to the self same laws of
probability that you are attempting to prove?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>I am now going to put a fork in it because it is
done.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu">Morton K. Brussel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:14 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:ls1000@live.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">Laurie Solomon</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A
title="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu">Stuart Levy</A> ; <A
title="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">peace-discuss@anti-war.net</A> ; <A
title="mailto:davegreen48@yahoo.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:davegreen48@yahoo.com">davegreen48@yahoo.com</A> ; <A
title="mailto:galliher@uiuc.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:galliher@uiuc.edu">Carl Estabrook AWARE</A> ; <A
title="mailto:bill.strutz@gmail.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:bill.strutz@gmail.com">Bill Strutz</A> ; <A
title="mailto:rbkutz@gmail.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:rbkutz@gmail.com">rbkutz@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title="mailto:r-szoke@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:r-szoke@illinois.edu">Ron Szoke</A> ; <A
title="mailto:mc-wetzel@hotmail.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:mc-wetzel@hotmail.com">MartyneConrad Wetzel</A> ; <A
title="mailto:dharley@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:dharley@illinois.edu">dharley@illinois.edu</A> ; <A
title="mailto:jencart7@yahoo.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:jencart7@yahoo.com">Jenifer Cartwright</A> ; <A
title="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com">Karen Medina</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Corn Festival -- RE: Sweet Corn Fest
Fri & Sat!</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Laurie,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Quite remarkable these comments: </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>…one should be asking the question of why the anti-war groups are
any different or better than their opponents in both their educational
practice and content. Are not they also engaging in a form of
brainwashing? Isn't it just a case of my old man is tougher than your
old man? It appears to me that if one engages in the same sorts of
brainwashing practices (e.g., educating) as one's opponents, then one has
become the monster that one is fighting and is no better than one's opponent
for all practical purposes (disregarding ethical and moral beliefs in the
righteousness of one's content which the opposition also sees as being true of
their position and content).</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One can reasonably infer from these lines that information has
<I><B>no</B></I> effectiveness in changing public opinion. However, history is
replete with revolutions in thought and politics of one sort or another as
people became aware of their plight through the arguments of others as well as
through their own experience, and to call the supply of information involved in
this process "brainwashing" seems abject. Has the claim that the U.S.
invaded Iraq because of its possession of WMD not been refuted and rejected by
information a form of brainwashing? Has the claim that the U.S. was bringing
democracy to Iraq and now Afghanistan not been gradually rejected by the facts
reported of what is happening there? You seem to adhere basically to the notion
that there is no truth in human affairs and that in any case knowing the truth
cannot change minds; there are only opinions and ideologies. A rather
inflexible and dismal position I think. It is true that formal education has its
propagandistic and nationalistic aspects, but that does not contradict the idea
that education can be enlightening, that there is such a thing as an education
that enriches and broadens the individual. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Have you personally never changed your opinions via increased
information and study— "brainwashing" ? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You seem to imply that there are no valid standards in choosing one
argument against another, that all arguments are equivalent in their
effectiveness to convince an audience, that all argumentation is "brainwashing".
I cannot believe it, and neither do you, for you indeed write to enlighten your
audience just so by argumentation. i.e., education. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>--mkb</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Stuart,<BR><BR>That would be a legitimate question if all things were
equal which they are not; and at one time, I might have agreed. I have
long ago given up on the efficacy or education alone as an effective tool
(particularly in the case of its use by the underdog or minorities). It
takes much more than mere education or educating.<BR><BR>However, on another
note, if it is true that we are all products of our education as you suggest -
although I see us all as being products of a much broader and informal social
process of socio-cultural socialization which takes place long before any
formal education and when the young members of a society cannot read,
write, talk, or comprehend sophisticated media propaganda - formal education
and mass media propaganda merely serve to reinforce the basic socio-cultural
norms and values that we have been made to internalize as we are growing up,
except possibly in the cases of immigrants to a society who may have
internalized slightly different norms, values, and beliefs as to the proper
ways to act and think. But assuming that we are all products of education and
that anti-war groups have as much right to engage in educating as other
groups, one should be asking the question of why the anti-war groups are
any different or better than their opponents in both their educational
practice and content. Are not they also engaging in a form of
brainwashing? Isn't it just a case of my old man is tougher than your
old man? It appears to me that if one engages in the same sorts of
brainwashing practices (e.g., educating) as one's opponents, then one has
become the monster that one is fighting and is no better than one's opponent
for all practical purposes (disregarding ethical and moral beliefs in the
righteousness of one's content which the opposition also sees as being true of
their position and content). In the words of Sancho Pancho in Don
Quixote, "whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it
is going to be bad for the pitcher." Brainwashing is brainwashing
regardless of the content; and uncritical acceptance of the content of any
brainwashing that leads to the lack of questioning of one's own premises as
well as those of others comprises the production of mental midgets and moral
idiots in my
book.<BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Stuart Levy" <<A
href="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu">slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu</A>><BR>Sent: Sunday,
August 29, 2010 12:27 PM<BR>To: "Laurie Solomon" <<A
href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">ls1000@live.com</A>><BR>Cc: "John W." <<A
href="mailto:jbw292002@gmail.com">jbw292002@gmail.com</A>>; <<A
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">peace-discuss@anti-war.net</A>>;
"Stuart Levy" <<A
href="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu">slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu</A>>; "Carl Estabrook
AWARE" <<A href="mailto:galliher@uiuc.edu">galliher@uiuc.edu</A>>;
<<A href="mailto:davegreen48@yahoo.com">davegreen48@yahoo.com</A>>;
"Bill Strutz" <<A
href="mailto:bill.strutz@gmail.com">bill.strutz@gmail.com</A>>; <<A
href="mailto:rbkutz@gmail.com">rbkutz@gmail.com</A>>; "Ron Szoke" <<A
href="mailto:r-szoke@illinois.edu">r-szoke@illinois.edu</A>>;
"MartyneConrad Wetzel" <<A
href="mailto:mc-wetzel@hotmail.com">mc-wetzel@hotmail.com</A>>; <<A
href="mailto:dharley@illinois.edu">dharley@illinois.edu</A>>; "Jenifer
Cartwright" <<A
href="mailto:jencart7@yahoo.com">jencart7@yahoo.com</A>>; "Karen Medina"
<<A
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com">kmedina67@gmail.com</A>><BR>Subject: Re:
[Peace-discuss] Corn Festival -- RE: Sweet Corn Fest Fri & Sat!<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:22:17PM -0500, Laurie
Solomon wrote:<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Here, I guess we differ. I do not think is
as clear cut and easy a matter as<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">brainwashing. The mere fact that they are so
easily brainwashed, so<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">unquestioningly dogmatic and uncritical, and so
inclined to come to the<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">defense of the corporate ideology even when it is
clearly against their<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">immediate interests suggests to me that
enlightenment of them would just be<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">another form of brainwashing with a revised
dogma.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Well, we're all products of our education, right?
Why shouldn't anti-war groups<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">participate in educating the
population?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>