From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 19:28:33 BST
Hello David,
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: MD Political Correctness
> mel said:
> .............................................the gray
> area between rigorous rejection of an idea on the one
> hand and intolerance on the other is a judgement call.
>
> dmb says:
> A judgement call? No. We can discuss the relative merits of an idea AS AN
> IDEA and this is entirely legitimate no matter how vigorous the
discussion,
> no matter how good or bad the idea and no matter how stubbornly we may
cling
> to our views.
>
mel: I think you may have missed the context
on the comment. The motivation was graciousness.
The distinction made in the e-mail to which I was
replying is that connotatively, the meaning in how
someone addresses objection betrays the very
message of intolerance.
Denotatively, however, which in general communication
is the inferior host of meaning, your assertion above is
of course correct. Formal logic MAY abstract the truth of
an argument at that level.
However, the emotional tone, the associational
implications, the juxtapositional meta-text of a
comment, reply, or discussion is the 900 pound
meaning to the 12 ounce logic.
The problem is motive. The emotional state that
leads to rigorous rejection on the one hand, and
the choice of intolerance on the other may both
generate a similar emotional tone or coloring to
the connotative meaning. So, how do you tell
them apart? Typically this is a matter of:
1) Assume what you wish about the statement and
put the other party on the defensive.
2) Ask more questions to get clarification
3) Ignore the connotative and deal with the denotative
4) Gently spin or shift the subject matter discussed
to get at what the most important message.
(obviously 4 is my typical preference.)
Returning to graciousness, a virtue which is in this
age ill-apprehended, perceived as weakness, and
rarely used, it is important to understand its use.
Sometimes when a piece of ground can be 'given'
to avoid polarizing a situation, a concession to, or
of, charity brings gain to EVERYONE and not just to
one side as is typical of today's discordant style of
argument.
Does this delineation make ANY sense, in
context, to you? For brevity I tried to avoid
quoting "chapter and verse" of several e-mails.
> dmb says:
> But bigotry judges the value of persons according to race,
> ethnicity, gender and other unchangeable and irrelevant standards.
mel:
Intolerance is also a choice regarding ideas, or concepts, and their
adherents. One may chose to be intoletant of communists, fascists,
white or black supremacists, Packer's, Raider's, or Manchester
United fans, or because of lifestyle.
e.g. A fundamentalist-literalist church member may choose
an intolerant stand regarding a "gay lifestyle", as a possibility
in the community and work to pass legislation aimed at preventing
the situation as much as possible. (Unrelated same sex
individuals may be barred from purchasing property together.)
> dmb says:
> There is just no comparison between bigotry and the
> view that bigots are not good.
mel: Hmmm, I'm missing something here.
> dmb says:
> Using this form of grotesque even-handedness, criminals and cops are the
> same because they both employ force to achieve their goals. This is not a
> judgement call so much as simply recognizing conventional distinctions.
And
> in Pirsigian terms, bigotry is a low quality social value and rigorous
> rejection of an idea is an intellectual activity. They different levels of
> reality.
mel:
I am not sure how to respond to this, while in the later part of this
you are obviously dead on target - and stated it well, on the first part
I would think that the comparison of cops and criminals would in
large measure depend on the fineness with which you discerne
both violence and morality. It is possible for both to act either in a
moral or immoral manner on some things and conversely on others.
It seems to me that conventional distinctions ARE judgements.
David- I have tried to address each point per your preference.
Your replies always make me think and articulate precisely.
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 19:31:12 BST