Francis:
Well I hope your satisfied. Now everyone knows just how dumb and
foolish I am. And to top it all off, I now have to offer up my
apologies for making such a fool of myself before the entire list.
I am sincerely sorry Francis. I don't know I how I ever could have
thought that you intended to impose your own brand of scientific
objectivism on an unsuspecting world. I've made an awful mistake and I
just hope you and the rest of the subscribers will accept my apologies
and not think too badly of me.
The truth is that I really am not too smart and I make a lot of foolish
mistakes. I do this all the time, so I've even come to learn to enjoy
the taste of humble pie. In one way, however, it was worth it. I can
tell you it makes me feel a lot better to be fairly certain that you are
a wholehearted supporter of individual freedom, human rights and
participatory democratic self governance.
So far as I can tell, there are only two or three areas where our views
seem to be out of sync. The first has to do with taking our individual
human rights, freedoms, opportunities and responsibilities for granted.
I don't assume that this war has been won. I am convinced that we do
need to keep paying close attention to it. In fact, I subscribe to the
notion that one of the big prices we must pay for our liberties is
eternal vigilance. So if I were filling out that Humanity 3000
questionnaire, the protection of minorities, differences and human
rights would have been at the top of the list.
Second, we seem to diverge on the notion of individual human
sovereignty. I maintain that our personal sovereignty is an inalienable
inherent part of what it means to be a human being. I think it is the
central value that allows us to negotiate a successful social contract.
As the bricks and mortar of our social contracts, it gives us the
ability to form and maintain successful systems of self governance.
On the other hand, you seem to hold a different view. If I am
interpreting you correctly, it is that social order arises from some
supra or meta umbrella system of organization that we all must adapt
ourselves to. If I have misinterpreted you again, I hope you will find
the time to correct me in this.
Thirdly, we may not agree on the importance of personal integrity,
character and responsibility when it comes to the political, social,
cultural and economic questions we've been working on and talking
about. My view is that these personal qualities are central to any
discussion or debate on this type of issue. I think you'll agree that
it's easy for an individual who lacks integrity, character and
responsibility to lie about his or her deepest feelings when it comes to
things like human rights, freedom, personal sovereignty and
responsibility. I hasten to add that none of us are perfect when it
comes to practicing these values and living up to the standards we set
for ourselves. Still, over the long haul, our actions speak volumes
about our intentions and commitments to our central values and innermost
beliefs.
This is just my way of saying that I don't think it appropriate or wise
to try to separate or a person's character and the examples he or she
sets when we are discussing these kinds of issues. The character and
integrity of the party we are addressing is critical to the meaning of
the words and ideas being expressed. So in my opinion, it is entirely
appropriate to bring into question the sincerity, integrity, motives and
attitudes of the person who is expressing his or her personal views on
matters such as governance, social order, cultural traditions and
economic activities.
Unlike the supposed objective observations of a scientist looking at
some physical property or phenomenon, the meaning of our actions and
expressed thoughts on social, political, cultural and economic issues
can only be fully understood in the context of our personal lives. This
context includes our history along with our intentions, hopes and dreams
for the future.
In fact, it was precisely because I did not know the history of your
actions and words that I made the awful mistake of assuming that your
omissions of principles might be a sign that your intentions and future
visions were so dangerous and threatening to the rest of humanity. I'll
take full responsibility for not checking further and jumping to some
obviously wrong and mistaken conclusions about your ideas for the
future. But that mistake just reinforces the argument that in these
issues who and what we stand for are central the meaning we are
attempting to convey
We are all deeply connected to each other even across the vast
differences in space, language and backgrounds that exist for the
participants using this list server. In a virtual community such as
this, it is all to easy to misinterpret each other, since we know so
little of each other's personal lives and histories. It is as easy to
incorrectly assume that the person making a statement has character and
integrity as it is too assume that someone else lacks credibility and
ought to be brought to task. My point here is that on these questions
of values, our personal lives and histories are central to how others
interpret the words and signs we use to convey meaning.
Simply put, talking about ones character, reputation and the examples we
have set over an extended period of time has everything to do with the
meaning behind the words and phrases sent out over these wires. It
seems to me that a mix of trust and skepticism is the best approach when
attempting to trade meaning and understand one another. Bottom line, in
my opinion ad hominen exchanges are entirely appropriate and even
essential to fruitful constructive exchanges in this context.
That is not to say that there are not fuzzy limits beyond which an
exchange of ideas can collapse into a cesspool of name calling. If I
crossed that boundary, again I hope you will accept my heartfelt
apologies.
Norm McPhail
--------------C165549F516CDE21B053E477
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="norm.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Norman K. McPhail
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="norm.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:McPhail;Norm
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://204.94.86.93
org:N. K. McPhail & Co.
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:norm@socal.wanet.com
title:Norman K. McPhail
note;quoted-printable:Web site address: http://204.94.86.93=0D=0A
fn:Link to web site: THE DAWN OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
end:vcard
--------------C165549F516CDE21B053E477--