Hello Reg.,

I believe I understand from where you are come. I too can see the need to think outside of the mechanical model, including studying the literary works of non-Western societies. My comment about Japan and China was to put it to you, that even in the 1970s, it should have been possible to argue Japan and China are not the same on historical and society grounds alone. Your thesis could rightfully be added.

As we alluded, Western culture has been entrapped within Newton models, reductionism and positivism; at the loss of explanation, gestalts and relationships [perhaps, broader than Chinese classics?]. This case posited applies to US, UK , Oz and Western countries generally.

Moreover, if we turn our specifically attention to the US, as a centre state [Huntington,] and then ask; what makes America, America? I think we can take guidance in the “Manifest Destiny” [O’Sullivan].

The ideal of the Manifest Destiny was/is to force the expansion of democracy based on Anglo-Saxon theoretical justifications. Initially, this politico-social ideology was applied to the Western expansion of the US and to the annexation of Texas. Today, the US, as a superpower, has globalised the Manifest Destiny, as a missionary enterprise. In US eyes, they feel just, fair and accurate: Other ideologies don’t achieve a look-in. Herein, Islam is the new Communism.

Given the above-related frame, I see the Western powers [except France?, with the US and the wheel, unlikely to consider alternative ideological or methodological approaches], even alternative democratic processes. Confucianism and Daoism will be approached by the West with a langsyne attachment to Anglo-Saxon ethnocentric ways.

For a civilization, I guess the bottom-line is to keep on expanding, be productive and don’t rest on one’s laurels.

At present, the West is in a stage of conflict and facing possible decline, whilst North East Asia seems to be expanding. In 1760 ,the apt model was to apply theory to practice, 1860, to industrialise and educate the people, and, from 1960, to look towards your Confucian-Daoist recommendation. That said, “superior” models tend to be tentative. 2060?

Kind regards,

Oliver

Oliver

Again, I appreciate your insights. I suppose the title of my book, A Confucian-Daoist Millennium?, suggests that I am inclined to think 2060, 2160 and beyond already may be taken care of and Manifest Destiny served the Christian tradition in both its Capitalist and Scientific forms well for a period, but that now it has become like other forms of faith that cease to serve their followers.

I was reading a piece by an American today under the title of 'The I Ching is my Bible' and it claimed this was not an uncommon attitude in American amongst those who felt let down by more mainstream forms of morality and spirituality.

My concern, however, is more with Western political leaders who see themselves as following a course of real politik long after they have become strategic dupes.

By the way, you know a little about me, but I know nothing of your background. Could you let me have a thumbnail sketch of the experiences that have informed your reading?

With warm regards

Reg

Reg.,

I worked with Westpac (National manager, Deposit Products) until 1992 and moved into education. I have taught at UTS and UWS. In Singapore, I was a Visting Lecturer at Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Director of Studies of a unicentre (1,200 students). In Hong Kong (base) and China, I was Academic Director of another unicentre (2,000 students). I have taken time off to complete a mature age PhD (about 6-9 months away), where I am studing the influence of cultural axioms on knowledge discovery in new product development. I have lived in Asia for nine years.

I have written curricula and TV series (OTEN/SBS) on Asia Pacific Marketing.

My research compares Chinese and Western societies. Post-doc, I plan to globalise my current model, which looks at vertical power ethos (secrecy, control, patrimonalism), horizontal altruism (non-kin altruism, product mutualism, exchange altruism) and conventional orthodoxy langsyne attachment, a priori validation, conformity. Hoping for ARC funding.

Recently, returned from Chicago where I called into the US-China Chamber of Commerce regarding data collection fpr my thesis.

Soon, I may return to Oz or end up at a US university.

Will address your comments soon.

Regards and best wishes,

Peter (a.k.a. Oliver

Bushbred Part One

Not intended for this communique, but partly on the same line.

With North Korea, the West led by GWB, is aiming at a target really nothing to do with the prey they have had their sights on for the last five years - except that going by GWB’s reckoning NK belongs to his Axis of Evil.

The North Korean problem in origin really belongs to the early Cold War era. It was an era in which America after WW2, using lessons from the mistakes of Post WW1 Versailles, initiated the wonderfully beneficial Marshall Plan resurrecting our former enemies Germany and Japan as well as other war-torn countries, really proving what the early Christian doctrine of forgiviness can achieve.

Further, with the rising presence of the Soviet Union , we backed America all the way, American movies of US wartime exploits, remaining immensely popular. A new more deadly fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union and of it getting ahead in the space race and a quickness of matching the US with exploding a hydrogen bomb, only increased our feelings for our need of dependence on America.

Apart from the present NK problem, which most social scientists might say, is largely the cause of unchanged thought-patterns still dominating NK reasoning, as well as partly with China, considering her still suppling 3/4s of NK’s domestic supply besides the possible upkeep of one million men under arms.

Not that we should totally condemn China, even with a former Soviet high-ranker like Putin possibly going China’s way a little, as well as possibly also formerly non-aligned countries like India.

Non-alignment is an interesting term because in today’s problems, which besides North Korea, are mostly to do with the Middle East with Afghanistan only just to the north east - countries like China and indeed a revitalised Russia still with a Cold War nuclear stockpile, certainly could be termed non-aligned and not truly pro-America.

Japan and South Korea, of course, are virtually trusted allies of America, their post-WW2 US engineered constitutions making sure of it.

Bushbred Part Two

Today’s White House problem can certainly be certified by using GWB’s term - if you are not with us you are against us. Much like the worn-out bull-roar of the British imperialist army sergeant-major - yours is not to reason why?

There are so many of our former allied military commanders critical of all the decisions that have been made since 9/11, which really only killed around the same number of people who die in the average large passenger aircraft crash.

Cerainly we are still shocked and sorry, while still deeply wishing that the attack was better to be by us on a Middle-East Islamic mosque killing three thousand rather than three hundred.

Though maybe we are now getting too-much negative feed-back about American mistakes right back to our defeat in the Vietnam War, which Daniel Ellsberg was so vocal about with Tony Jones on Lateline, as Ellsberg was also caustic about, not only the present mess in Iraq, but the futility of ever trying to change Iran. We give reminder also about our East Timor commander, since retired, Major General Peter Cosgrove now having severe doubts about us having joined the US and Britain in the attack on Iraq.

Possibly the most foolish thing ever done in the Middle East by the US, was to allow Israel to go nuclear, which in Realpolitik logic means that we now need Iran to go nuclear to create a much needed power balance, as happened between India and Pakistan

Should suit GWB’s school of thought as a Texan, seeing that in the Texan gunslinger days with the Martins and McCoys, it was safer to keep each evenly armed rather than disarm either one.

The sorry part about it, is that not once have we heard about our PM saying a cross-word to his apparent bosom friend the US President. There is a saying he has the political knack but not the historical knounce. Does this mean that future historians who write on a global scale may not treat Mr Howard as well as those more Aussie bound?

Oliver

Many thanks for the background, which I found to be most interesting.

My phone number is 07 3254 1687, generally any time after 5 pm or weekends. I would call you if you preferred and are prepared to give me your number.

I am intrigued by the difference in our approaches to similar issues. My formative influences are studies in literature and language and then work in diplomacy. I tend to shy away from what I take to be your more analytical and academic disciplines.

I wonder what you would make of my somewhat intuitive ponderings in A Confucian-Daoist Millennium? I wou;ld also be intrigued to hear your apploication of the influence of cultural axioms on knowledge discovery in new product development as applied to Mae-Wan Ho's work and writings on the I-SIS website.

Best regards

Reg