I put together a long response to Pattie's blog today. I thought it would be apropos to post it here as well:

Nice post. It's good to see you speak to these issues, if only because you are contributing to others' understanding in your attempts to make sense of all these atrocities. Atrocities are often referred to as "senseless," but that implies a uniquely determined logic by which they should be assessed. Often, the atrocities follow a very perceptible pattern, a quite rigorous "logic." It's just that the implications of the pattern are distasteful to us. Cause: the ozone goes away. Effect: we die. Not what one would have, but not logically inconsistent.

Check out discussions in literature of the "prisoners' dilemma" for a specific example of how disastrous results can occur "logically." The way to escape from such consequences is often to do some assumption-checking (beginning with assumption-marking, inevitably) and see where it gets you. In the specific case of the prisoners' dilemma, it is in the assumptions that the "logical" outcome of mutual destruction is set up. In particular, the forced competition ensures the results (and, BTW, shows up the "invisible hand" model as presumptuous). Logical systems always presume. A high-school geometry student knows the distinction between an axiom and a theorem (although his attempts to apply this knowledge anywhere but geometry class may well be followed by painful consequences, particularly if the application is well-suited, which only begs the issue of contextuality), and college calculus is littered with inescapable "regularity conditions."

I bring all of this up because much of what you lament is a result of American "logic." Development is good, ergo kill all the trees. Fat is bad, ergo shovel the fat people into the already-enormous slave class. The LOGIC, in the strict sense of that word is fine in and of itself; it's the ASSUMPTIONS being

(a) only several of many conceivable starting points from which "logic" could proceed (and an arbitrary subset thereof),

(b) productive of other conclusions beyond the ones that those who are still at liberty to speak want you to draw, or

(c) just plain erroneous

that causes the trouble.

Assumption-checking is no longer permitted in American culture except by the ruling class and the police class. Members of these two classes may attack the validity of specific premises in others' arguments. Anyone else doing so is met with, "Are you calling me a liar?" and will be beaten, killed, or lose permission to pursue sustenance. Attempts to attack purely logical considerations are somewhat better received, but one notes that as long as the party free from considerations of assumption-checking can continue to spout off propositions that must be considered a priori truths by his opponent, the ball game is essentially over before it begins.

Your perceptions are fine. The surreality you perceive in your situation is largely caused by having to speak to a culture with extraordinarily shabby standards and norms of discourse, some of which I have mentioned above. You are too good to be saddled with lowest common denominator rules of engagement, and that is the source, in my opinion, of your frustration. Somehow, though, I get the feeling that you will be better able to deal with such matters as time progresses and you continue your writing.

Thank you for inspiring me to write this.

Love,
Carl