Job Discussion Forums

[Teacher in Rome]

[moonraven]

Here's something published today in the Common Dreams site:

Published on Friday, September 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
9/11: The Politics of Eternal Mystery
by Ira Chernus

What�s the most important thing to know about September 11, 2001? That Al-Qaeda attacked the United States? That the Bush administration knew about it in advance and didn�t stop it? That some U.S. � based conspiracy orchestrated the whole thing?

No. The most important thing to know is that any of these possibilities might be true. Or any of them might be false. We simply don�t know.

It�s not merely that we don�t know yet. We will never, ever know for sure. The United States entered the 21st century wrapped in an unsolvable, irreducible, eternal mystery.

What�s more mysterious is that so few people recognize this mystery. Most Americans assume that the official version is true: Al-Qaeda did it. End of story. A much smaller number are convinced that the Bush administration was totally complicit, either from foreknowledge or actual planning. End of story.

But 9/11 is a story that will never end, precisely because neither side in the debate will ever believe the other side. It doesn�t matter how many facts are unearthed. History isn�t made by facts. It�s made by interpreting facts. In this case, each side can go on forever, fitting all the facts into its preferred interpretation. That�s why the mystery will never end.

This is nothing new. Every great historical event is a mystery. Why did the American Revolution happen, or the French Revolution, or the two World Wars? Historians will debate those questions forever.

The difference is that, back in those days, people believed there was a single truth to be found. Just gather all the facts, they said, and analyze them with careful logic. Eventually, we�ll all have to agree on the truth.

When did Americans begin to suspect that the very idea of �truth� in history might be an illusion? If that great change can be traced to any one day, it would have to be November 22, 1963, the day John F. Kennedy was shot. As the investigations unfolded and the reports were published, some of us began to realize that it would go on forever. We�d never be sure of the truth.

41 years later, it still looks that way. New facts may very well come to light. But the single-shot believers and the conspiracy theorists will each fit those new facts into their own interpretations. No facts will compel either side to change its mind.

The Kennedy assassination was the first great event in U.S. history that was widely recognized as a permanent irreducible mystery. Soon, we were embroiled in a war in Vietnam that became just as much of a mystery. Only the eerie, nearly incomprehensible final scenes of �Apocalypse Now� could begin to capture it.

At the same time, young people were discovering drugs that turned the whole world -- or just a fingertip or a grain of sand -- into an infinite mystery. �Something�s happening here, what it is ain�t exactly clear,� they sang. �Something�s happening, but you don�t know what it is.� For a few short years, the whole nation became Bob Dylan�s �Mr. Jones.�

The essence of the �60s revolution was being open to the mystery. For a generation that had just begun to come of age when Kennedy was shot and the Vietnam war began, the future was inherently unknowable. Anything might happen. A sense of infinite possibility, shining through all the great rock and roll of the �60s, fueled a utopian politics. Since life was so uncertain, the only sensible course was to follow Janis Joplin�s advice: �Get it while you can.�

In the counterculture, every �truth� was only an interpretation. The more sides you could see to anything, the better. To see from all sides at once was the highest wisdom. The ultimate truth was always ambiguity. Infinite diversity was the highest value. This opened the door to multiculturalism, environmentalism, and the liberation of just about everything.

But millions of Americans found mystery, with all its implications, intolerable. They wanted to know that �truth� was still out there, waiting to be found. Most of all, they wanted moral truth. They craved a clear, immovable, absolute line dividing good from evil. That�s why they voted for Richard Nixon � only to hear him plead, �I am not a crook� and then see him resign because he was indeed a crook. So much for absolute moral truth and certainty.

Now George W. Bush is trying to succeed where Nixon failed. Long before 9/11, Bush was attacking and ridiculing those (Democrats, he clearly implied) who believe in moral �options.� Ever since 9/11, he has held up that day as �proof� that there is objective moral truth, an eternal good pitted against eternal evil. Bush would have us view anyone who opposes the U.S. as a metaphysical force of evil. Naturally, that make the U.S. a metaphysical force of good, obliged to search out evil and destroy it. No ambiguity allowed, ever.

This air of certainty is nearly all Bush has going for him in the current campaign. That�s why he talks endlessly about 9/11 and brags about his swagger. Millions cheer, because he makes their dream of �truth� believable again.

Republicans ridicule Kerry as a �flip-flop� to hide their fear of mystery and uncertainty. If he once changed his mind about Vietnam, what else might he change his mind about? Any man willing to look at the same issue from more than one viewpoint, and find some truth in each viewpoint, scares them. He symbolizes their ultimate fear � that no one will ever be absolutely certain of anything, that there is no good old-fashioned �truth� to be had. Bush and the deaths of 9/11, on the other hand, symbolize their certainty that Kerry, his ��60s generation,� and all those who see the ambiguous mysteries of life are simply dead wrong.

Out here on the left fringe there is also some fear of mystery. Some feel safer �knowing for sure� that Bush was behind 9/11, or at least that he knew about it in advance and let it happen. But that kind of false certainty betrays the true spirit of the �60s revolution. It would be far better for all of us to acknowledge that we will never know the ultimate truth about 9/11, or the Kennedy assassination, or anything else for that matter. We can still hold strong moral views and act for what we believe is right. But we will have to keep our minds open. That is the best way to oppose George W. and all he stands for.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado and author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea (Orbis Books). [email protected]

I believe I said some of this yesterday on this thread....

[moonraven]

mesmerod:

If your question about the pulling apart of the universe is a serious one, here are a few of the concepts involved:

It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. If you think about possible mathematical figures as models for the shape of the universe, and consider that of the double parabola--that is to say identical parabolas above and below the x/y axis, and from what we know about parabolas--that the wings get further apart the further they go from the crossing of the axes, one can see that the pulling apart is an intrinsic part of the shape of the figure (universe).

There are some scientific articles from different conferences addressing the pulling apart phenomenon in Internet--or at least were.

[mesmerod]

moonraisen,
do you know the difference between a "pulling" and a "pushing" force? your statement is just a mathematical model of an non-uniformly expanding universe. in order for you to claim it is being "pulled apart" you need to have an external force applying such pressue. so you have two options:

a) there exists some other universes or material, outside this universe, distributed such that it causes a parabolic expansion/pulling coexistence

or

b) the parabolic distribution is caused to an uneven distribution of internal forces (which seems far more likely and stays within the bounds of classical&quantum physics)



if the universe expands towards the asymptotes of a parabola, all that means is that there will never be enough energy to cross the lines. i guess you are hypothesizing that the closer you get to the line, the more energy you need......mathematically obvious, but that does not imply a "pulling force"....you might as well chalk it up to dark matter, anti-gravity, opposite ends of a black hole, or whatever...."pulling" forces are going to lead you into something unproveable.

even if you go with my option (a), or a varied explanation along the same lines....you end up with a infinite loop of one universe surrounded by another surrounded by another, etc. sort of like a never-ending matryoshka doll.

[moonraven]

If you will have the courtesy to stop f***ing with my name, I will listen to an alternative explanation. Option b is closest to the operative model we are looking at. Please keep in mind that the universe is not two-dimensional like a palabra graphed out on a piece of paper. If you can envision the parabolas in three dimensional form, you will have a better idea--I believe--of what appears to be happening. The latest work in this area has generated concern because the pulling apart action (the pulling force coming from the "upper" and "lower" wings of the parabola as they move further apart while the universe expands) seems to be happening relatively rapidly. Obviously all of this is based on analogy and is theoretical, given that none of us is capable of getting the perspective from outside the universe. It is the action of pulling apart that has given rise to the generation of the model.

Your comment about the opposite end of a black hole doesn't connect with me. Antigravity would seem a bit more palusible. Also, within the past few weeks Hawking has indicated that he was dead wrong about what happens in and with black holes. I believe that change of mind has been pretty well-publicized, as I saw it in at least 2 newspapers plus in Internet.

[mesmerod]

moonRAVEN,
my "opposite end of a black hole" comment was in direct reference to hawking's latest ideas. i do understand the 3-d aspects of the parabola reference....they are used in many quantum mechanics books when refering to the concept of time&space. a 2-d model is always way more easy to visualize and use when not using mathematical equations (at least for me). how does the semi-constant cosmic background radiation fit into your parabolic model? is your model a spacial or energy distribution? personally, i have always liked to visualize the universe as more of a "4-d donut" shape. i'm not convinced the universe is a simple expanding/collapsing system. in a "donut" shape the system is self-contained, yet still possesses a seemingly "infinate" spherical shape (which means you need to visualize a 4-d donut...if you can do this, please let me know!)



btw, i liked the moonraisen name.

[moonraven]

I hate raisins, and I prefer to maintain my Native American identity.

Cosmic background radiation is interesting to think about IF you actually bite for the hot big bang theory. Not at all sure that I do.

The donut model: it occurs to me that sometimes the models we are drawn to to concretize the unconcretizable (I have a sense that isn't a word) are in some measure mirrors. That doesn't imply that you are a donut--but it does imply that the idea of limits and self-containment appeal to you. Probably the model doesn't appeal to me because I am resistant to limits, relate to constant expansion, etc. Interesting concepts to kick around, probably boring as watching paint dry to other posters....

[mesmerod]

i have problems with what you just said....but this isnt the forum for it.

[MJS]

[desultude]

[some waygug-in]

[some waygug-in]

If you are interested, you can listen to Mike Ruppert speaking in a radio interview with Sue Supriano about 9/11, his new book, peak oil, and some other things.

http://www.suesupriano.com/

It's long, but it's worth listening to.

[OzBurn]

Back to money. I live in Vietnam. You can make 15 dollars an hour here, after taxes, or more if your teaching skills are superior and you focus on money. If you teach 40 hours a week, that's 30 000 dollars a year. Half that is 15 000 dollars a year. It's very cheap to live here -- as low as 30 cents for lunch, for example, with quite nice lunch around two dollars with entree, salad, bread, drink, etc.

How much can you teach? I could teach here 40 hours a week and I would still be working less than I was in the US as an executive. However, most people who have a strong work ethic can teach 30 hours a week, in my opinion. I have met people here who work over 40 hours a week (contact hours). I do 23 hours. Since there's not much to do, I save most of it.

I have seen and read enough of the ESL world to know that estimates of how much one makes or can make differ widely. In Hungary, the first person I met was making 400 dollars a month plus a subsidized apartment. He thought this was good money. Two weeks later I got a job that paid over 20 000 dollars a year after taxes. But his salary was more typical of the local economy. If you log onto the Turkey section, you can find an argument about the pay for private lessons, with one poster, if I recall correctly, saying he charges 30 to 50 USD an hour, and another saying that that is pure fantasy. Who's telling the truth? My bet is with the former person, but I suspect he's a pretty good teacher or at least knows how to market himself. Most people in ESL probably don't care all that much about teaching well - they are in it for the adventure, the girls, whatever -- and even if they do care, they don't have much access to tools to improve their teaching. Then again, one has to speak English well and have a certain kind of personality to be able to teach well, and so even those who do want to improve don't necessarily have the basic materials needed for the job.

There is a lot of variation in what one can make depending on how hard one works or has to work. At my current school, the curriculum is quite rigid. I can't vary it much, and so it takes much less prep time. Basically, I make it work with my own unique brand of direct teaching, but I don't redesign it from top to bottom, which would take a lot of time but would certainly work better. The school doesn't want it, and I don't want to do it, anyway, because here, it would be pointless. (Actually, they would fire me.) However, what this might mean for you is that in a situation like this, you can prep less, and make more by teaching more hours (or you could have more free time).

What this boils down to is that you can make more money in Vietnam than in most Asian countries. However, I am sure that there are higher-paying niches in most countries, esp. in big cities, that you can eventually find if you are focused on that. It may all turn out much the same in the end.

Certainly if you spend huge amounts of time arguing with people who think GWB ploteed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, you are not short of time, so maybe you don't value free time that much. LOL.

For what it's worth, I don't find Vietnam all that interesting, and Saigon is the least attractive part of Vietnam after Hanoi. But that's where the money is.

Now it's stopped raining, so I'm going...