08-10-2012, 02:00 PM
Marty was kind enough to reply quickly:
Hi Dawn,
Finally someone asks!! Here is the story in brief. The two scenes in the book are from a play (that couldn't be performed -- more what they call a closet drama, something to be read). It is entitled "How Ronald Reagan Finally Saved the World, or As You Like It, as long as You Finally Save the World." The play is really an examination of logic, and it begins with an odd thesis. Suppose instead of having the Rosenbergs who were supposed to have stolen the supposed secret of the atom bomb from us for the Russians, suppose we had had the Bergenroses, the opposite of the Rosenbergs. The Bergenroses were a Russian couple who discovered a lens secret which could protect people from nuclear weapons and attempted to bring the lens secret to JFK. The play tries to see what would have happened logically in history if such a couple had existed. Now it turns out there is not one logic but two different kinds of logic. There is the logic of the cold war, the logic of ideology. And there is a deeper logic a dialectical logic. And it turns out that if you follow cold war logic nothing different happens. The US government fashions the same history "following cold war logic" out of the fictional efforts of the Bergenroses as it fashioned out of the fiction efforts of the Rosenbergs. The dialogue between JFK and Dulles in heaven is the culmination of the exploration of the cold war logic and where it goes. JFK ultimately is won over by Dulles to the assassination, because all the people surrounding Kennedy all the establishment liberal forces including The Nation Magazine, IF Stone, etc... chose to cooperate in the cover-up and not expose the CIA and Dulles. Of course Dulles is a symbol in this sense. For me the key line in the dialogue is where Dulles says "We didn't take over the government. We just shot you.". And I think this is correct. Our government and society was so wedded to the cold war that JFK could be removed, and that was enough to turn off the movement toward peace. JFK was a deKlerk without an ANC. By an American "ANC" I have in mind something like what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Crisis or Community. If anyone wants to know why MLK was killed they can read that book. This why Obama seems to be so limited when it comes to dealing with the war machine. He doesn't have a mass peace movement.
Maybe I can add one more thing. At the beginning of the play it is explained that the characters in the play don't really stand for persons but rather for points of view. And the reader is warned not to get too upset if he or she sees a character doing something that he or she doesn't like. I imagine the part where JFK embraces Dulles and is won over to the assassination is the confusing point.
By the way there is a lens that can protect people from nuclear weapons and the play examines that lens as well. The lens is dialectical logic which helps people penetrate the irrationality and insanity (and this in not hyperbole) of "mutual assured destruction". And this is also explored in the play and ultimately triumphs. Einstein said, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything in the world except our thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." In part what Einstein meant was that the moral imperative "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was transformed by the splitting of the atom into a practical necessity. Now whatever we do to others we are doing to ourselves. The more we threaten others with nuclear weapons, the less secure we become. The only answer for freedom from the threat of nuclear weapons is an international regime to which all states subordinate themselves, which eliminates nuclear weapons.
Hope this is helpful. If not, I perhaps can answer other questions. If the group is interested I could make a copy of the play and send it to you.
Anyhow perhaps this helps explain.
Best wishes,
Marty
Hi Dawn,
Finally someone asks!! Here is the story in brief. The two scenes in the book are from a play (that couldn't be performed -- more what they call a closet drama, something to be read). It is entitled "How Ronald Reagan Finally Saved the World, or As You Like It, as long as You Finally Save the World." The play is really an examination of logic, and it begins with an odd thesis. Suppose instead of having the Rosenbergs who were supposed to have stolen the supposed secret of the atom bomb from us for the Russians, suppose we had had the Bergenroses, the opposite of the Rosenbergs. The Bergenroses were a Russian couple who discovered a lens secret which could protect people from nuclear weapons and attempted to bring the lens secret to JFK. The play tries to see what would have happened logically in history if such a couple had existed. Now it turns out there is not one logic but two different kinds of logic. There is the logic of the cold war, the logic of ideology. And there is a deeper logic a dialectical logic. And it turns out that if you follow cold war logic nothing different happens. The US government fashions the same history "following cold war logic" out of the fictional efforts of the Bergenroses as it fashioned out of the fiction efforts of the Rosenbergs. The dialogue between JFK and Dulles in heaven is the culmination of the exploration of the cold war logic and where it goes. JFK ultimately is won over by Dulles to the assassination, because all the people surrounding Kennedy all the establishment liberal forces including The Nation Magazine, IF Stone, etc... chose to cooperate in the cover-up and not expose the CIA and Dulles. Of course Dulles is a symbol in this sense. For me the key line in the dialogue is where Dulles says "We didn't take over the government. We just shot you.". And I think this is correct. Our government and society was so wedded to the cold war that JFK could be removed, and that was enough to turn off the movement toward peace. JFK was a deKlerk without an ANC. By an American "ANC" I have in mind something like what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about in his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Crisis or Community. If anyone wants to know why MLK was killed they can read that book. This why Obama seems to be so limited when it comes to dealing with the war machine. He doesn't have a mass peace movement.
Maybe I can add one more thing. At the beginning of the play it is explained that the characters in the play don't really stand for persons but rather for points of view. And the reader is warned not to get too upset if he or she sees a character doing something that he or she doesn't like. I imagine the part where JFK embraces Dulles and is won over to the assassination is the confusing point.
By the way there is a lens that can protect people from nuclear weapons and the play examines that lens as well. The lens is dialectical logic which helps people penetrate the irrationality and insanity (and this in not hyperbole) of "mutual assured destruction". And this is also explored in the play and ultimately triumphs. Einstein said, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything in the world except our thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." In part what Einstein meant was that the moral imperative "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was transformed by the splitting of the atom into a practical necessity. Now whatever we do to others we are doing to ourselves. The more we threaten others with nuclear weapons, the less secure we become. The only answer for freedom from the threat of nuclear weapons is an international regime to which all states subordinate themselves, which eliminates nuclear weapons.
Hope this is helpful. If not, I perhaps can answer other questions. If the group is interested I could make a copy of the play and send it to you.
Anyhow perhaps this helps explain.
Best wishes,
Marty