So, I´m in Andorra. I´ve been crashing around a bit for work, and took a couple of days and a rental car up to Andorra from Valencia, where I was at a conference. How did it go? Well… as you´ve no doubt heard about aviation, any one you can walk away from… Or in this case, any one from which you can hop in the car and drive 300 miles. So, it´s Sunday, I´m in an Internet cafe, and I´m finally getting around to posting to Protein Wisdom.
As it turns out, I´ve taken quite a shine to these itsy-bitsy countries. Andorra has not disappointed. Much larger than the other tiny country bordering Spain, Gibraltair, it is nestled in the Pyrenees and is quite mountainous. I am quite glad that this, my second use of a manual transmission (the last being southern Africa), is being done on a rental car. I have aged this particular clutch a great deal in the last few days. In any case, I am in the main city Andorra la Vella, which is a very densely built little punctuation mark of a town surrounded on all sides by mountains extending several thousand feet.
One must remember that in a small country, all towns are border towns, and hence, a great deal of trade is done in retail, duty-free knick-knacks: perfume, clothing, alchohol, cigarettes, watches, and the like. So in that respect this is a little bit like the Tsim Tsa Tshui district in Hong Kong – full-contact retail.
I just got in last night, and am debating about my plans for the remaining day or so I have left. I have a 10 am flight out of Valencia on Tuesday, so at most I have one more night before I hit the road. I may poke around Andorra for a bit and try to get some pictures, but we´ll have to wait and see how that turns out.
The other big observation I´ve had on this trip, is that despite assertions that America is taking over the world, my time in cities hither, tither and yon suggests that the rest of the world is much like the rest of the world, and bears more in common with each other than it does the US. I mean the breakfasts, the sidewalks, the traffic patterns, the restauraunts, the discos, et cetera. The UK bears a passing resemblance, as of course, does Canada. Japan is more or less its own thing, but all in all Continental Europe isn´t vastly dissimilar from Africa, North Africa, or Asia, from what I´m seeing. Rather odd, really – well other than Andorra looking European.
I had been meaning to write about the whole Pope thing, although given the length of the blog news cycle, I might as well be commenting on the debate of Manuel II Paleologus himself, rather than the content of Benedict´s lecture. In any case, here´s how I see things. The question is essentially one of free speech – not so much the actual legal notion of free speech, but rather the philosophical underpinnings of free speech.
On one hand, it is generally recognized that incitement to violence or otherwise yelling ¨¡Fire!¨in a crowded theater is certainly not resonsible free speech and may, in some cases, be undeserving of protection. On the other hand, freedom of speech is not consonant with freedom from being offended. So, what we have in the case of the Pope´s lecture a question of whether or not the content incited violence or was otherwise beyond the pale. This ties back to a broader question (which I gather is tied into the core questions asked by Jeff in regards to the construction of meaning) – if Catholics aren´t calling for the destruction of Islam, following Islamic commentary on the Papal lecture, then should we not be able to expect similar behavior on behalf of Islam.
I´ve spoken to some people about the whole question of coercive interrogations, and one of the responses that troubles me no end, is that we can´t question folks harshly because we lose our moral high ground and become barbarians. The Bad Guys torture, but that´s to be expected as they are barbaric. If we note that the bad guys do this, then we´re no better than they are, but if they do it, it is expected.
There are (among many) three sets of guidelines for ethical decision making: absolutist, utilitarian, and reciprocal. Under the absolutist view, the rule of law reigns supreme, and must be adhered to at all costs. The utilitarian view looks to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The reciprocal school adheres to the Golden Rule – and its corollary; be treated as you would wish to be treated.
In the case of dealing with radical Islam, many in the west have adhered to the absolutist view, and view any breach of ethical behaviors as being abhorrent, regardless of the utility to be gained, or the behavior of our opponents. While this is a nice sentiment, and should be applied where it makes sense, it seems to fly in the face of practicality. If one imagines this from a game theoretic perspective using the Prisoner´s Dilemma, then always following the rules results in getting jacked repeatedly.
I do not have strong feelings about whether our dealings with Islam should be goverened by a reciprocal or utilitarian methodology, but in any case, it seems that absolutism is a formula for failure.
we should be playing tit-for-tat, not iterated PD.
that is the optimal strategy, u know, play fair until the otherside cheats, then play each move the same as the adversary.
and, in that case, the pope’s comment was a wasted move in gamespace. there was no payoff for his side.
actually, there was negative payoff, or punishment.
That’s not true. As you noted earlier, the critics’ real stance is:
That’s not an absolute standard. That’s a double-standard. Or it is the multi-culturalism as cultural relativism standard.
Nishizono–
You’re absolutely wrong, in my view. The Pope said, in effect, “Be reasonable,” to which many of them replied, “We will kill you!” It demonstrated that the idea of discourse with the radical Islamists is absurd. It also has provoked the actual moderate Muslims to speak up, and presumably this may lead to greater introspection.
Are you saying that the Pope actually inaugurated this dialogue?
As for the Prisoner’s Dilemma, what moves would the Pope have been responding to, in your view? And is the MSM the jailor in your model?
The Pope is not playing in gamespace.
He’s a grown up.
no, the pope said “your prophet is inhuman and evil” using paleologus as his mouthpiece.
what response did he expect?
and pablo, we are all in gamespace.
u just don’t see it.
the iterated PD and tit-for-tat are played by defectors and non-defectors. or cheaters and non-cheaters.
an interesting variation is the Platonia Dilemma, which is played by (hopefully) superrationals and defectors.
nishizono,
From what I have read the Pope did not explicitly say “your prophet is inhuman and evilâ€Â. Go read his speach, it’s easily found.
What he said is that SOMEONE else said that…
If all you take from that very long, and pretty hard to read speach is that… I am sorry for you.
Dan Collins has it closer to what was actually meant by the Pope’s speach…
But you are correct we are all in ‘game space’…
And I think the Pope made a calculated move, one which produced the easily predicted response. Too bad more has not been done to follow up on that response.. ie ‘moderate’ muslims voicing their disgust in the millions rather than the onesy twosy we see coming from CAIR and the like….
There is another game called “Brinkmanship” (chicken)… and that is the game we are playing with the Islamic world.
What the Pope did was swerve a little into their lane…(or put nukes off their coast, what ever) when he should have probably pulled the wheel from the steering column…
And what the Muslims did in response was essentially that…. they have, apparently, pulled their wheel from the steering column, in full view of us (their opponents)…
Our next gambit is what to do about this.
Funny thing is… our car is a Abrahms tank, and theirs is a donkey cart… we have more options than just ripping our wheel off too… we can end the game at a time of our choosing. End it completely.
Now the last topic of the post:
Does anyone on this board remember any nation-state player we have historically engaged with that did NOT torture and humiliate, or use our men as propaganda? I can’t seem to find any….
They all violated the GC… all of them.
The GC is like our national law…or any ‘law’ for that matter.. it is really for more of an after the fact catch all.
I can’t think of a single law in our nation that actually ‘prevents’ crime… the threat of punishment ‘prevents’ crime… laws are for use to spell out what will happen when undesired behaviour is acted out.
Does anyone on this board recall any time winners of conflicts have had anyone tried for war crimes?
Not many… usually that is the fate of loosers.
So staying with game theory… it is far wiser for us to follow tit with tat..
To show the enemy that you will go where he goes, do as he does, think like he thinks, until he is beaten.
In Brinkmanship you must be prepared to show the enemy that you, too, can be unpredictable, irrational, and ruthless.
After which time we will return to our ‘natural’ way of being pretty harmless and beneficial to the human race.
You should start hanging out at SadlyNo! and Pandagon, nishi, they are really fond of that game.
No he didn’t. But if he had, he’d have been correct. So?
No, we’re not. You just don’t see it.
B Moe, they hating on me there too.
yes darrell.
tit-for-tat is proven unbeatable.
my sorrow is that i dont think the the superrational exist in homosapiens.
i had hoped the pope was one.
Nishizono
I think your problem is that you are a little bit whacko.
?
Just what the fuck is that? It sounds like you are confusing advanced mathematics with human nature. Just how “superrational” can you be when lunatics from the dark ages are trying to stick a red hot poker up your butt?
Sounds to me like a synonym for “hubris”
Lost Dog, i thought you admired my passion for mathematics!
Hofstadter.
Book.
superrationality
Website with a three year discussion on the possibility of the superrational.
yes, im a contributor.
But are we all playing the same game?
Or, given the plane of reality that logic seems to exist on, are we even on the same field?