I apologize unreservedly to John Armaos for the tone and temper of my last two comments. I apologize also to Joe Rowlands, my host. I retract my remarks (and will remove them if agreed by John and Joe) save for the correction to the statement that John took issue with, at bottom.
No, John, I meant nothing personal with my jabs and I regret them knowing you felt denigrated (I am often guilty of the same tonal clangers that I find fault with in others). I empathize with and cheer your achievements and am encouraged at your intelligence and forthrightness -- reading your previous output, it is obvious you are a passionate, articulate, cultured, empathic and well-valued part of the RoR community. Not a Pecksniff. Not a Miss Grundy. Not Cyclops or even Dr Cerebro . . .
I have been spending too much time watching Mexican Wrestling on the SOLO channel . . . and so I must wander Hell (Ottawa) in my 'Collectivista!' pyjamas for all eternity, unless reprieved by John Armaos . . .
WSS
A forum is a place for people to discuss ideas, learn from each other, explore new thoughts, and enjoy the companionship of like-minded people. An Objectivist forum in particular should be set up to encourage critical thinking and rational discourse. We don’t want blind acceptance of ideas, but an intelligent grasp of the material. We must also remember that Objectivism is not the conventional worldview, and participants will have varying degrees of understanding.
So the first principle that should guide the forum is that it should be open to disagreements. We don’t ban people because they have ideas we disagree with. We don’t hide behind our philosophy, afraid to examine and discuss contradictory views. In fact, there is some benefit to having people around with opposing points of view. By arguing against them, you can learn to refine your own arguments, better integrate your knowledge, and flesh out your understanding.
The benefits from these opposing points of view are not unlimited though, and we shouldn’t pretend that they are. That's the second principle. Non-Objectivists are guests. If someone is making an honest effort to learn and understand Objectivism, they should be encouraged to stay and work it out. But when someone shows up making wild assertions, and is unwilling to discuss them intelligently, then they provide no benefit to the forum. For those people committed to an opposing worldview and unwilling to learn, they provide value only to the extent that people can and want to use them as a debating foil or sounding board. These people are guests who participate by permission, not right. They are expected to be on their best behavior. They are held to a stricter standard and should act appropriately.
(from the pen of, it seems, Joe Rowlands, "Principles of an Objectivist Forum")
--------------
In the context of Shelby Steele's column on a "White Guilt," I noted the lasting hurt feelings and anger that 'race' questions evoke in the US. I say these things from a Canadian perspective, and as I noted, and note here again, we Canuckistanis are no better.
I empathize with America, the big pot. It seems to seethe sometimes with unhappiness -- and yet it remains a beacon to the world.
 We unutterably smug Canucks opine on race and redress and constantly look over our shoulders to see how the US deals with race and redress. We establish hugely expensive Royal Commissions who rove the country spending money on race redress 'issues,' who then shuttle back to Ottawa to spawn and spend more money addressing the redress issue anew. Then legislation, then law, then more money.
The point I ought to have underlined in my original is the Crown. This quaint legal fiction is what I should have made clear is an actor on the stage.
So the syllogism of John does not follow from my premise, and thus I found his ready charge of 'collectivism' provocative and unfair.
And then, of course, I lost my sense of proportion and became that which I loathe, a mean, one-eyed maniac.
Anyhow, in context, corrected, and I will forfend/forget/forgive the insults from/to my fellow inquirers (linguistic charity is when one gives the benefit of the doubt in conversation, when beguiled by an ambiguous turn of phrase. Good manners which I promptly forgot applied to me).
Redacted:
--------------------------------
Thanks for the corrections, William Scott [Dwyer]. I'm familiar
with Steele -- his Tuesday, May 2nd article in Wall Street
Journal being his latest op-ed.
I don't agree with that attempt to place the blame firmly here
and firmly there and firmly firmly firmly with bombs if
necessary. All Americans are in the same pot. They owe it to
each other to be fair and to settle outstanding debts and
damages fairly.
We Canuckistanis are no better, are worse indeed -- since our
efforts to kill off White Guilt are accompanied by state
dollars to keep it alive (since ours has a Royal legal system,
those danged old treaties and understandings with the Crown
still have weight). Still, we have fewer racial lynchings and
racial ghettos, less of the historic gulf that still exists
south of the border.
In any case, I don't share Steele's finger-wagging certitude. I
do agree that affirmative action and its variants can stifle
and compromise the very folk whose previous subjugation it
sought to redress (I'm with Haack on this, across the board).
------ just to show that I have truly learned my lesson, I will change into my 'Collectivista!' jammies and address Mr William Scott Dwyer's pointed questions shortly.
(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 5/14, 7:00pm)
|
