Vulcan explanations In PROGRESS -SORRY
A discussion of IDIC between CHARLES - a Vulcan and TALAL as obtained from the Vulcan mailing list.
CHARLES: This might be the one circumstance when it would be feasible. If people are getting sick of war, and really want to stop, then Surak's action could be enough to let them break out of their stalemate and try something new. I am very reluctant to generalize Vulcan experience to other cultures. Part of what humans think of as Vulcan "inscrutability" is our unwillingness to impose our own experience on others.
CHARLES: Fear of war can motivate one towards peace. It's partly because Vulcans understand what the consequences of war would be, with modern weapons and well-developed mind disciplines, that we have successfully managed to continue Surak's example.
TALAL: Not to mention the convenient departure of a goodly portion of your population to the Romulan Empire, where the more "traditional" part of the Vulcan world chose to practice the disciplines of mnhei'sahe over cthia. Had the Passion which Rules them remained amidst the Dispassion which Rules you, there might have been a very different history. The Romulans still keep an Empty Chair in their Senate for Surak, filled (at least before Ael t'Rlailiiu got her hands on it) with the very sword that Surak had given S'task. What space remains for S'task on Vulcan? Ambassador Spock has gone to deal peace with the Romulans. This has been derided as illogical. Perhaps then, he follows in Surak's footsteps in the name of humanity. There is much the Vulcan serenity leaves echoing in the hollows of history.
What price did Vulcan pay for the Reformation? Are not the Romulans the "Other," with whom Surak failed to deal peace? You live (or at least will come to live, in the next several centuries) with us far more closely than you do with them? Is it not incongrous that you should live in political alliance with distant cousins while remaining estranged from your own flesh and blood? If you can rejoice in our diversity, why not in their's? Perhaps they remind you, as we have been known to, of what you once were, and that makes you uncomfortable. The hatred that is bound by the same blood often runs deeper than that of the foreigner. It is fed by familiarity, and perhaps the reflection of the Other in this case is to familiar to accept. Our own reflection is often the hardest to accept of all.
CHARLES: You should not confuse this with some sort of idyllic perfection: Vulcans are far from perfect. There have been plenty of political complications on Vulcan, just as on Earth.
TALAL: If IDIC is not realistically applicable in the extreme case of the Nazis, then this leaves us with a much harder question. Who is it legitimate to destroy? If we cannot allow Nazis to become a majority in a democratic system due to their beliefs, what is the limit to the sets of beliefs that society finds appropriate in rulers?
CHARLES: While I'm never entirely sure that I understand human philosophies, I think there is a distinction between IDIC and pacifism. It's also worth noting that Vulcans do not necessarily claim to have a solution to everyone's problems. Surak's witness worked on Vulcan. We would be pleased to find it helpful for other species as well. However the success of Surak's approach may have been due to the character of Vulcans, our particular history, or anything else. Vulcans have never claimed that we expect everyone else to follow the same approach, or that doing so would be feasible. We very nearly withdrew from the Federation because (among other things) it appeared that others were being overly influenced by us.
TALAL: I will not reiterate Leonard McCoy's argument against the Vulcan secession. It stands without amendment, and I shall not make any attempt to do so. I refer any and all to a well made speech. What I will ask is this: If the Duthiliv Pirates of Orion returned, or those like them, and there was no Federation to run interference, whose example would you follow, that of Surak or S'task? And who would the government of All Vulcan follow? We are all capable of deciding who we will follow, and if we consider the philosophy of others, it is perhaps because we share similar ideas. Vulcan has not decided to put away the sword entirely, but it has not forsaken the teachings of Surak, who told them that the spear in the Other's heart is the spear in their own, they are he. Perhaps we can discuss this discrepancy together. For all our differences, we would not seem to be so different, Charles of Vulcan.
CHARLES: I would also note that Vulcans are not completely pacifist. There are armed Vulcan vessels in Starfleet, and they have on occasion been involved in conflicts that resulted in loss of life. Surak's witness of "waging peace" is a very powerful one. Few Vulcans would resort to force quickly or easily. But there's a difference between saying that we respect all beings and completely rejecting the use of force. IDIC is not exactly the same thing as pacifism. It is also not exactly the same thing as Terran democratic pluralism.
TALAL: Well said. Democratic pluralism has its limits as far as who can be tolerated. It is not at all infinite. It is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. That does not make it satisfying, it merely makes it practical.I have found no solution yet, Charles of Vulcan. But I am sure that underneath all flesh, and our multi-colored blood, that we share the same divine spark, the breath of God. I would much rather try to find the solution together, rather than apart.
CHARLES: I did not and do not support Vulcan secession. I would hope that our ideals and the teachings of Surak would be helpful to humans. But part of IDIC is recognizing and being honest about differences. That includes the possibility that our answers may not be entirely right for you.
GINGER: Or at least must be modified for a not usually very logical people!
TALAL: What I feel uncomfortable about with this line of argument is the use of "us" and "you." What defines "us" as different than "you?" What is so monolithic about Vulcans as to make them an "us," but so different about Romulans as to make them a "them." If differences are to be mutally accepting, how can they ascribe these differences? Is it legitimate to rejoice in someone's differences as long as they stay really far away (like the other side of the Galaxy, across the Romulan Neutral Zone)?
CHARLES: I am more interested in people and their actions than in abstract systems.
TALAL: I have difficulty seeing how one can study people and their actions without abstract systems (i.e. theory). If each individual case is indeed so individual as to be unrelatable to a general case, then is there any point in making a study of the phenomena?
TALAL: There is the possibility of knowing that you did not make entropy increase by participating in the destruction of diversity yourself. Ultimately, there is no one that one can control but one's self, and in moral issues, the only thing one can do is live one's life as an example. Surak did this, and died for it. Of course, there is the other side of the equation: Is it just to stand by and watch diversity be destroyed? The argument is problematic from either perspective. I think there comes a point where force must ultimately give way to reason and love. Where the circle breaks, I can't really say. It's something to think about, at any rate.
CHARLES: I believe one can respect and value both those who wage peace and those who wage war, even while we hope to find ways of helping the first to succeed often enough that the second don't have anything to do.