[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00556: Re: Auschwitz

From: "Bernard Clayson" <bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:56:04 -0000
Subject: Re: Auschwitz

Dear Georges,

You promote what could/should/is an important message, and destroy it by specifying one occurrence, and one religion.
Note - religion, not race, as a scientist you should know religion is a mental state (a belief), a race is a physical state with gene's.
I will spare you a re-run of who is and who is not Semitic, and your text proves that (may I quote you on that<grin>).

If you used one of the numerous other more recent, and/or current occurrences, you would no doubt find a more receptive audience, me included.
For example, USA and numerous countries, or Israel and the Palestinians.
If you want other more historic examples, look back at any country that had, or ambition of being, an empire, all had the common inclination to dominate others, as do the current examples.

Regards
Bernard

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Auschwitz

================================================
At the 50'th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz I wrote down my impressions and grew a
habit to post them at subsequent anniversaries.
You'll find them in attachment.
Georges.
================================================



AUSCHWITZ

The 50'th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz 
has been marked by numerous celebrations and 
manifestations, whose main purpose was to learn from 
Auschwitz experience in order to make its repetition 
impossible.  Therefore I am asking myself: 
what have I learnt?

With respect to all I have seen, heard and red, the 
answer seems clear: nothing. I heard people cry and 
I have cried with them; I saw people mourn and I have 
mourned with them; I have been faced with unspeakable 
atrocities and I was shocked and distressed.
But I have learnt nothing.  

Knowledge, indeed, does not consist of emotions, nor 
of particular events failing to fall into a logical 
structure. I still ignore, under which conditions new 
Auschwitz's may be set up, or avoided.  More, I do 
not know at all, what should be understood under the 
"Auschwitz-to-be-avoided". Surely not the specific 
KZ-Auschwitz, in whose place there is no new Nazi_KZ 
to fear.

When I wish to say something reasonable about birds, 
I start with the zoological definition, with the 
"birds-principle". I am not obliged to accept this 
definition and I may call it in question. One thing I 
cannot do: say anything reasonable about an undefined 
concept. When zoology still lacked the definition of 
birds, somebody proposing to talk about them had 
to supply his own definition.

As, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no 
"Auschwitz-logy" nor a general "Auschwitz-Principle", 
I would like to suggest one:    

AUSCHWITZ IS FOUNDED UPON ABSOLUTE PROPOSITIONS IN HUMAN DOMAIN,

indeed upon their absurdity, which admits any 
arbitrary interpretation and discrimination.

Physics admits exclusively relative propositions. 
When we say that a stone is heavy, we imply a relation 
to the earth: we know that it would be quite light on 
the moon, that in the cosmic space its weight would 
totally disappear.

In the human/social domain absolute propositions are 
equally absurd, but we lack an authority, a humanistic 
Galileo, or Einstein, to enforce this truth. 
Somebody proposing a physical theory based upon 
absolute propositions would simply make himself 
ridiculous. Doing it in the human/social he would 
have all chances to found an Ideology, a Religion, 
an Empire. An Ideology, a Religion, un Empire which 
would be based upon the Auschwitz-Principle, 
whose laws, principles and virtues would 
necessarily point towards an Auschwitz.    

I realize that I imply with these words a whole 
philosophic system, a "Humanistic Relativism" 
without being able to justify here its principles. 
An interested reader may find their discussion 
in the study:
 RELATIVISTIC DIALECTICS 
 
I shall present here an example which shows the 
nonsense of the absolute classification criterion 
"Jew" and of the absolute proposition: 
"This man is a Jew".

From the race point of view it is an obvious nonsense, 
as nobody has ever observed a "Jewish" gene.    

One may certainly have a Jewish culture, speak jiddish, 
hebrew or ladino and tell Jewish jokes. However, culture 
is clearly a relativistic concept. Nazis may have used 
it as an indicator, but never as an essential, absolute 
criterion of discrimination. A large part of Jews 
murdered in Auschwitz had little or nothing to do with 
the Jewish culture. Some were Catholic priests, some 
have heard for the first time from the Nazis or from 
the blackmailers that they were Jews.

The criterion of Jewish religion is equally absurd.  
According to the Jewish law is Jew who has a Jewish 
mother, or who has been converted by a Jewish rabbin.
However, in order to be sure that my mother is Jewish, 
I have to ascertain that she had herself a Jewish 
mother, or had been converted by a Jewish rabbin. 
The same holds of course for the converting rabbin.  
A clear case of a vicious circle.   

Consequently, the absolute concept "Jew" is empty and, 
as such, may get any arbitrary meaning. Heidrich 
understood it perfectly when he declared: 
"Wer Jude ist, entscheide ich" - "It's me who decides 
who is a Jew".

If we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we must 
abolish situations in which a human being may classify 
and discriminate other ones upon absolute, arbitrary 
criteria. In other words, we must extend the 
Relativistic Reason over the human/social domain and 
may admit only relative, demonstrable propositions 
in this domain as well. This calls, of course, 
in question nearly all established ideological 
and political structures, which are based upon 
absolute principles.

We live in an Auschwitz-friendly world and if we 
want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we have 
to call in question its essential principles.

But do we want it really?      


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]