In praise of civility.

[Roxanne Appleby]

[Nor slap-fighting either, TE .]

Aw, I was just kiddin' around, Roxelby.

You know you're my dream woman.

Your intellect is a beacon in the night to this wandering ship, and is only exceeded by your beauty.

(When in doubt, assume sincerity - )

Thank you, love.

As far as beauty, I owe it all to M. Renoir.

 

[TE999]

(When in doubt, assume sincerity - )

Thank you, love.

As far as beauty, I owe it all to M. Renoir.

Sincerity is my middle name, fair one.

And I am sure M. Renoir hasn't done you justice.

 

[Liar]

Le Amicus said:
Not that it matters, (Neverending Story), and not that anyone will grasp or support a contention of confidence and dedication, but once again into the breach.(no not that breach, silly)

Reality, that which is, exists whether you like it or not and exists in total independence of your perspective; is merely is.

Reality may also be referred to as, 'objective truth', accurate observation sans subjective judgment.

As each individual, by definition, perceives reality with a similar but different set of tools, the senses and the mind, it follows that each will perceive the objective truth of reality in many different manners and styles.
-----------

Yes. There's reality. I know, and haven't said or even remotely tried to imply otherwise. And yes, there is objective judgement. Too often confused with subjective judgment (perception difference, and other factors), but that's another story, and irrelevant to my point here.

---------
Passing through my mind are the dedicated lives of the Pasteurs, the Curie's, the Einstein's the Gallileo's, the Fermi's of the past. Dedicated, focused men and women functioning without decorum, without humility and with urgency, not patience, to comprehend one or more little corners of reality, that objective truth that all rational men seek to know.

Tis not just the sciences, my friend, but the dedicated, focused, intense and myopic pursuit of excellence by Ice Skaters, Ball Players, Ballet Prima Donna's, entrepeneurs, inventors, Bell, Edison, many many more, give a lie to the advice of humilty, decorum, patience and civility.

It is, was and will always be, the inner self esteem, blind devotion to truth and excellence that drives the very best of humanity and brought us out of the caves.

The brave young warrior who trained and forced himself for years to become the best and then with total dedication, risks or sacrifices his life to defend the milling herd of patient, civil cows in the pasture.

Be what you may my friend with all due regard, but keep your passive advice in a closet with the other altruists...
--------------------------------------

Hmm, I guess the point didn't manage to get across.

Amicus, have you read the actual writings of Galileo? Or of Luther, or Curie? Or Vico or Aphasia or anyone who wanted to call attention to discoveries or opinions that were uncomfortable for the majority of their audience? Not what they said, which no doubt was controversial, but how, the style, the choice of words, topoi, points of reference, and so on.

They act very much on exactly the premises that I set up, because that is the only way that they would have been noticed at all. The language is often even painstakenly humble, because thay had to deal with an uneven status relationship - often them vs "the establishment" (church, king, men in general). The epitome of humility, a careful navigation of decorum. There are no explicit or even inferred dismissals of the other side's intelligence, no poop flinging and no agressive dismissal of the other's frame of reference. It's not ''I'm riiiight and you're wroooong you imbeciiiils!!!", but rather "If I may in this esteemed collegiate, I'd like to share with you these observations I've made, that may be a valueable complement to the way we understand the divine order of the Lord." or something like that.

In some cases, like with Galileo, there was no escape from the controversy of the message. But read and analyse his mode of communication, and you'll see that it's not for lack of trying to be civil. The most real breachers of civility that you will find in the history books, save for the very rare exception to the rule, are those with a massive army to back it up.

It's not about dedication to find the truth and it's not about the dedication to get the truth out to the world. You seem to confuse humility in the rhethoric strategy with meekness of will and lack of dedication. Nothing can be more incorrect. It's not altruism to analyse a situation, and act in the most efficient way accordinly. It's non-stupidness. And those people were anything but stupid.

It's the chosen mode of communication, and nothing but. To breach that, and speak in a way that pokes your opponenet and anyone standing nearby in the eye, you'll have to be Cassius Clay and have the means, opportunity and ability to immediately back up "I am the greatest!" with action.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . have you read the actual writings of Galileo? Or of Luther, or Curie? Or Vico or Aphasia or anyone who wanted to call attention to discoveries or opinions that were uncomfortable for the majority of their audience? Not what they said, which no doubt was controversial, but how, the style, the choice of words, topoi, points of reference, and so on.

They act very much on exactly the premises that I set up, because that is the only way that they would have been noticed at all. The language is often even painstakenly humble, because thay had to deal with an uneven status relationship - often them vs "the establishment" (church, king, men in general). The epitome of humility, a careful navigation of decorum. There are no explicit or even inferred dismissals of the other side's intelligence, no poop flinging and no agressive dismissal of the other's frame of reference. It's not ''I'm riiiight and you're wroooong you imbeciiiils!!!", but rather "If I may in this esteemed collegiate, I'd like to share with you these observations I've made, that may be a valueable complement to the way we understand the divine order of the Lord." or something like that.

In some cases, like with Galileo, there was no escape from the controversy of the message. But read and analyse his mode of communication, and you'll see that it's not for lack of trying to be civil. The most real breachers of civility that you will find in the history books, save for the very rare exception to the rule, are those with a massive army to back it up.

It's not about dedication to find the truth and it's not about the dedication to get the truth out to the world. You seem to confuse humility in the rhethoric strategy with meekness of will and lack of dedication. Nothing can be more incorrect. It's not altruism to analyse a situation, and act in the most efficient way accordinly. It's non-stupidness. And those people were anything but stupid.

It's the chosen mode of communication, and nothing but. To breach that, and speak in a way that pokes your opponenet and anyone standing nearby in the eye, you'll have to be Cassius Clay and have the means, opportunity and ability to immediately back up "I am the greatest!" with action.

If I may ever so humbly beg leave to suggest: Hey - that's pretty good, Liar.

 

[amicus]

Y'all know, I am certain, what 'tongue in cheek' refers to...well, Roxanne most likely sprained her tongue in an attempt to appease and ameliorate and be 'civil' in the current context.

For what Liar had to say, Roxanne, was not, 'very good' humbly or otherwise.

Liar was attempting to assert that he can 'have his cake and eat it too.."

Not.

There is no simple, clear way to expose the base of your thinking, perhaps the best is to deduct that you still wish Lions would lay down with Lambs and that there were no predator and no prey in the world in which we exist.

I am not God. I did not create nor fashion this world in my own image; I only attempt to understand and comprehend.

Those violent alpha men, who do not consider the finesse of life, defend and make possible the merchant and the trader who pay him and feed him so they can ply their trades in relative peace.

And when stability is achieved, through much pain and blood and the social order actually comes to some small semblance of order; then and only then can the halls of academe begin to assemble.

Only then do your civility and humility and sophistication come into play and then only in small degrees and subject to corruption.

And even so, within the professions there are rogues and adventurers, those who challenge accepted thought and they do not go gently into that darkness.

Ideas, like man, like nature, is/are/was/were, tooth and claw, the mud and the blood and the beer and I know you are loathe to even consider that.

And since you, Liar, and many, many others on this forum and at large, are so certain and so secure in your perceptions you cannot conceive that on the far, opposite horizon where I reside, I do so with same equanimity of certainty that you do and as well convinced as you are that you are bi-polar and occupying the dream side of reality, as far from reason and rationality as is possible and still perform the automatic functions of breathing and body regulation.

I rather liken myself to Goethe's Universal man, (I think it was he) in which I endeavor to experience and comprehend both extremes of the spectrum but reside in only one and ignore the middle.

amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Have you been drinking, ami?

 

[slyc_willie]

I rather liken myself to Goethe's Universal man, (I think it was he) in which I endeavor to experience and comprehend both extremes of the spectrum but reside in only one and ignore the middle.

amicus...

And therein lies your failing.

In seeking to endear yourself in some way to all spectrums, and obviously failing at such (your polarization is well-known), you compromise yourself and weaken your own claims.

You are not universal. By claiming yourself as such, you open yourself to criticism. And criticism you have gained, though you seem to pick and chose to which aspects you respond.

There are many like you in this world, Amicus, and deploringly so. Baiters, pushers, who seek only to inspire dissent and contention to further your own self-induced sense of importance. You put forth rhetoric borrowed from collegiate syllabi and reinforced through popular 'intellectual media.' But flowery words only go so far.

Don't hide behind the comfort zone provided by others' impassioned and factually ambiguous diatribes. Do your own research. Think for yourself.

 

[amicus]

Hey, Kendo, I am always drinking something or other...but is that the best you have to offer?


amicus...

 

[amicus]

You must be high on sumpin, slyc...or is that your entire repertoire, personal attacks?

I guess that is about all I see you post. Nice little niche for you, I guess, I could suggest a few bed partners for you here.

amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Hey, Kendo, I am always drinking something or other...but is that the best you have to offer?


amicus...

You were rambling more than normal.
I was just concerned about you, honestly.


Thoughtful Ken

 

[slyc_willie]

You must be high on sumpin, slyc...or is that your entire repertoire, personal attacks?

I guess that is about all I see you post. Nice little niche for you, I guess, I could suggest a few bed partners for you here.

amicus...

Awww . . . am I supposed to be hurt?

Where's the verve? Where's the intellectual retort? I have to say I'm very disappointed.

Did you think you wouldn't be attacked? Questioned? Cornered? Isn't that what you wanted?

Come on, Amicus . . . dazzle us. Excite us with your acumen. Or didn't you see that movie?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=kendo1]You were rambling more than normal.
I was just concerned about you, honestly.


Thoughtful Ken[/QUOTE]


Going to take that at face value, Kendo1...and yes...it was a little more ramble than usual...completed a task of composing three 500 word stories on different topics within a competition today...somewhat drained, but pleased with the first completed writing in months...and celebrating...quietly and alone, but celebrating nonetheless.

Thank you for your concern




amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=slyc_willie]Awww . . . am I supposed to be hurt?

Where's the verve? Where's the intellectual retort? I have to say I'm very disappointed.

Did you think you wouldn't be attacked? Questioned? Cornered? Isn't that what you wanted?

Come on, Amicus . . . dazzle us. Excite us with your acumen. Or didn't you see that movie?[/QUOTE]

~~~


Read the post beneath yours...perhaps you will understand...


amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

[QUOTE=slyc_willie]Awww . . . am I supposed to be hurt?

Where's the verve? Where's the intellectual retort? I have to say I'm very disappointed.

Did you think you wouldn't be attacked? Questioned? Cornered? Isn't that what you wanted?

Come on, Amicus . . . dazzle us. Excite us with your acumen. Or didn't you see that movie?

~~~


Read the post beneath yours...perhaps you will understand...


amicus...[/QUOTE]

Alas, I expected more . . . perhaps your borrowed brain will come up with something better later on. Might have to get a little shock therapy to jump-start it, though.

Maybe we'll continue this at another time, if you're up to it. But boredom has given way to sleep.

Well, what do you know, I've found my cure for insomnia! Ami, next time I can't sleep, I'll look for you to nullify my senses.

'Night.

 

[kendo1]

[QUOTE=kendo1]You were rambling more than normal.
I was just concerned about you, honestly.


Thoughtful Ken

Going to take that at face value, Kendo1...and yes...it was a little more ramble than usual...completed a task of composing three 500 word stories on different topics within a competition today...somewhat drained, but pleased with the first completed writing in months...and celebrating...quietly and alone, but celebrating nonetheless.

Thank you for your concern




amicus...[/QUOTE]

No probs.
You've been busy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ami, I believe that Rand had it right with regard to the nature of humans, but her understanding of human nature in its 'interacting with other individuals' aspect was very flawed - tragically so for her own happiness late in life. She died lonely and depressed, having driven away all those who wanted to love her.

Tragically for the "movement" aspect of Objectivist ideals, its loudest voices have adopted the same attitude in their relationship with the rest of the world. The version of O'ism they present is a hard and brittle thing, and a closed system. This does not bode well for the future.

Historically, such movements do not survive. An interesting model from our own history is the difference between the New England Puritans and the Pennsylvania Quakers, as described in Boorstin's "Colonial Experience." In their ability to function as a part of the pluralistic society surrounding their enclaves, Quakers were similar to that "intolerant" wing of O'ism. As a result they have all but disappeared now, and their role in creating this country was negligible. It will seem ironic to some here, but the Puritans were much more adaptable, and to this day many aspects of who they were are reflected in who we are, in ways that are almost all good.

That's getting a bit far afield; my point is this: The portion of Liar's post I quoted discusses just one thing, really: Politeness. The manner of address he describes does not require one iota of compromise in one's principles, yet it's orders of magnitude more effective in getting others to pay attention to what one have to say about those principles. It accepts the reality of a certain dimension of human nature and works with it, rather than trying to deny it or change it, a'la' "New Socialist Man." Rand herself never understood this aspect of human nature, with consequences that reach right into this odd little website, and many other more important places as well.

 

[Pure]

small correction

interesting posting, roxanne. i do agree with your criticism of attempts to make objectivism dogmatic, and to 'expel' those who disagree with (in our view) minor points, mr. kelley being an example. her view, as you know, was to attribute moral corruption to any who stubbornly held (i.e., refused to change) "erroneous" positions. The idea being that objective truth is there staring you in the face, so if anyone says, "not so," they obviously have an agenda, are up to something, etc. Thus if anyone says, "it's good to give a bit of your money, to someone who needs it--possibly through a charity," they are simply interested in fleecing possible donors.

as you know, it's ironic that this view is found among some marxists, catholics, and calvinists, all of whom claim to know the "objective truth." as (I think) Nietzsche said, you become like what you fight (in Rand's case, hardline marxism).

otoh, i don't think driving away associates can entirely be put at the foot of the philosophy, as opposed to personal foibles. many people are or become irascible, unduly harsh with others, etc. some seem to lack (or lose) social skills. some become (or are) very self centered, as in Rand's case, assuming she had a right to another's husband. IOW, while a degree of egoism is fine, there are extremes [what we might call egocentrism; self absorption] that others are not going to put up with.

here is a point of disagreement:

The version of O'ism they present is a hard and brittle thing, and a closed system. This does not bode well for the future.

Historically, such movements do not survive. An interesting model from our own history is the difference between the New England Puritans and the Pennsylvania Quakers, as described in Boorstin's "Colonial Experience." In their ability to function as a part of the pluralistic society surrounding their enclaves, Quakers were similar to that "intolerant" wing of O'ism. As a result they have all but disappeared now, and their role in creating this country was negligible. It will seem ironic to some here, but the Puritans were much more adaptable, and to this day many aspects of who they were are reflected in who we are, in ways that are almost all good.

There are certainly Quakers around now, in three main groups: evangelical, united "Friends United Meeting", and "Friends General Conference""unprogrammed"

[see documentation below, for numbers.

Quakers certainly functioned in early America, e.g. in Pennsylvania, and Penn's ideas were incorporated into PA's founding documents, 'charters', etc.

One, for example, was a degree of religious toleration; also, pposition to extremes of punishment, including the death penalty, etc. They never hanged adulterers, for example, as happened at least once in New England. In the early anti-slavery movement, a number of quakers were prominent, as well as the early feminist movement: i believe Lucretia Mott was a Quaker, for example. President Herbert Hoover was a quaker (whom i don't entirely admire for his economics, however).

[see documentation below]

One might note further that orthodox, New England "puritanism" is not exactly alive and well in its early form, which included burning witches and hanging dissenters, including quakers. It is, as you know, Calvinism, which has survived in part, through becoming less intolerant: Todays' "Congregational" churches in New England are quite different from their ancestor churches. Other Calvinist churches call themselves "Reform." In Canada, the orthodox Calvinists have kept the Presbyterian church alive, whereas the moderates have joined others, like methodists, in forming the Uniited Church of Canada, which is very much alive.
===

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/quak.html

There are three main organizations of Quakers that comprise the bulk of its membership: Friends General Conference, Friends United Meeting, and Evangelical Friends International.


Friends General Conference is a North American organization with an estimated membership of 32,000. 6

http://www.fgcquaker.org/fgc-home.html


Friends United Meeting has a membership of about 45,000 in North America, 150,000 in East Africa, and a total worldwide membership of close to 200,000. 7

http://www.fum.org/


Evangelical Friends International has about 30,000 members in North America, and approximately 100,000 members worldwide in more than 20 countries. 8

http://www.evangelical-friends.org/
===

general, inclusive quaker website:

http://www.quaker.org/



======

CELEBRATED QUAKERS

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/religions-and-their-famous-members-quakers.htm

1. William Penn, U.S. (British-born), 1644-1718.

Founder of the colony, later state, of Pennsylvania,[...] a haven for Quakers and other persons persecuted for their religion.

2. Edward Lloyd, British, 1688-1713.

Founded Lloyd's of London.

3. Nathanael Greene, U.S., 1742-1786.

Revolutionary general and war hero.

6. Lucretia Mott, U.S., 1793-1880.

Friends minister, abolitionist, feminist, and temperance advocate, helped found Swarthmore College.

7. Johns Hopkins, U.S., 1795-1873.

Merchant, banker, and philanthropist, founded Johns Hopkins University.

8. Ezra Cornell, U.S., 1807-1874.

Financier and philanthropist, helped develop a nationwide telegraph system and founded Cornell University.

9. John Greenleaf Whittier, U.S., 1807-1892.

Poet, often called "the Quaker Poet."

10. Edwin Stanton, U.S., 1814-1869.

Secretary of war under Lincoln and Johnson.

11. Walt Whitman, U.S., 1819-1892.
====

larger list at

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_quaker.html

 

[Liar]

Liar was attempting to assert that he can 'have his cake and eat it too.."

Not.

Quite right there, fella. I was not.

Apologies, but with this post I butt out of this discussion, because at least between you and me, a communicative meltdown must have occured.

You said:

"There is no simple, clear way to expose the base of your thinking, perhaps the best is to deduct that you still wish Lions would lay down with Lambs and that there were no predator and no prey in the world in which we exist."

Your deduction skills leaves a lot to wish fior then.

I'll dumb down my message for your benefit:

If you want to apply a metaphor to my examples and reasoning it's not that I propose that the lamb lie down with the lion. What I'm saying is that if the lamb attacks the lion, the lamb is fucked.

That's one of the few thingas that I actually could find ion your post that even remotely adressed the issue I was writing about. Except the part where you suggest that I'm not aware that others think radically different than me. Which is just hilarious because I've lost count of the times when I've explicitly and specifically posted that exact sentiment, about how important it is to have that in mind when communicating, and then been filed into the ooh-so-evil-mankind-hating Moral Relativist pile for saying so. By you. Make up your mind.

As for anything else yu wrote there, of alpha males with clubs, and rouges and adventurers and corrupt civilizations, You lost me at the first syllable.

Well, that's it. The finer points of Marxism and Randism, I'll leave to the three brave epic-post-batallioneers to churn out.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, that's it. The finer points of Marxism and Randism, I'll leave to the three brave epic-post-batallioneers to churn out.

There are few differences between the two except for aesthetics in my mind.

At their heart they are the same, absolute truths that must be followed to their logical extreme. If people get hurt, well, that's just the way it has to be.

 

[Liar]

At their heart they are the same, absolute truths that must be followed to their logical extreme. If people get hurt, well, that's just the way it has to be.

Sound like my neighbors and FC Barcelona.

 

[rgraham666]

Sound like my neighbors and FC Barcelona.

People love their excuses.

 

[Pure]

if i may put in a word for amicus,

(not my usual occupation)

i think he is saying, in many words, this: There has always been conflict, "tooth and claw", within nature and among/between humans. Some of this conflict is nasty, even deadly. That is how it is, and this is as it should be.

In the human realm of ideas/opinions, the same holds: conflicts may be harsh, "impolite," uncompromising etc [even leaving aside the resort to violence, which is sometimes taken]. This is how it's been, and how it should be, since that's how human knowledge and discourse progresses, and even how beliefs become, over time, more rational. not by tip toeing around, curtseying, "esteemed sire, i humbly beg to differ."

[[Of course politeness between some parties is sometimes possible, but to make it a "rule" or something desirable for all disagreements between any parties is misguided and would slow the progress of human discourse and knowledge.]]

I must say, speaking for myself [pure], that, looking at some of the great debates/controversies of history, there is some evidence that apparently supports Amicus' view. One sees lots of rhetoric and exaggeration. Even invective and insult are not uncommon.

Amicus is simply saying it's foolish or misguided to say, "Well, things would have gone better if the parties were more civil/polite." Or, in simple terms, "Couldn't we just have a tea party?"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To Pure: I have necessarily given an extremely truncated version of Boorstin's rich and nuanced theses regarding Quakers and Puritans, and recommend his most interesting book. I believe that you are a subscriber of the view that political culture is a very important factor in the establishment and operation of government systems (vs., say, a primarilly rational choice model.) Boorstin's examination of the Puritans of Massachusetts, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the philanthropists of Georgia, and the planters of Virginia offers many insights into how this country came to be what it did.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

(not my usual occupation)

i think he is saying, in many words, this: There has always been conflict, "tooth and claw", within nature and among/between humans. Some of this conflict is nasty, even deadly. That is how it is, and this is as it should be.

In the human realm of ideas/opinions, the same holds: conflicts may be harsh, "impolite," uncompromising etc [even leaving aside the resort to violence, which is sometimes taken]. This is how it's been, and how it should be, since that's how human knowledge and discourse progresses, not by tip toeing around, curtseying, "esteemed sire, i humbly beg to differ."

[[Of course politeness between some parties is sometimes possible, but to make it a "rule" or something desirable for all disagreements between any parties is misguided and would slow the progress of human discourse and knowledge.]]

I must say, speaking for myself [pure], that, looking at some of the great debates/controversies of history, there is some evidence that apparently supports Amicus' view. One sees lots of rhetoric and exaggeration. Even invective and insult are not uncommon.

Amicus is simply saying it's foolish or misguided to say, "Well, things would have gone better if the parties were more civil/polite." Or, in simple terms, "Couldn't we just have a tea party?"

This thread is implicitly about the act of intellectual discourse, because that is all we do here. Unlike the halls of Congress, power is not at issue here. The loser of any debate here is not going to be voted off the island, or taxed. Therefore, politeness is appropriate, or perhaps more precisely, there is no good excuse for impoliteness.

With regard to human conflict in general: I dream of a day when conflicts between passionate humans look more like Internet flame wars and Olympic blood doping scandals than Bosnia or Verdun.


PS. With regard to the often sharp language used in debates between Pure and me: "Politeness" must be defined in context. Pure and I are both rather sophisticated in this narrow realm (whether or not we are rubes outside it), and obviously enjoy the contest. We use satire, sarcasm and other devices with each other that in another context would be very impolite. For myself, I have to tone it down when I'm debating some others here, depending on their own comfort level or personality.

 

[Pure]

RA This thread is implicitly about the act of intellectual discourse, because that is all we do here. Unlike the halls of Congress, power is not at issue here. The loser of any debate here is not going to be voted off the island, or taxed. Therefore, politeness is appropriate, or perhaps more precisely, there is no good excuse for impoliteness.



i disagree. there is no reason to see "Author's Forum" --or the internet generally--as "intellectual", without ramifications in the 'real world' and for 'power' issues. some of us are active at the local level; some of us may get together and act.

further, as the saying goes "ideas have consequences." the internet-- its postings-- is affecting US politics: from Drudge's report on Monica's dress, to the circulation of Smith's "macaca" remark, which probably (helped) cost him the senate election in Virginia.

[para on bloggers, deleted]

[paragraph added] the drift of your argument is also odd. it says that because there are no consequences like banishment or taxes, politeness is appropriate. so your 'civility' argument has LESS application to the US Senate? it appears you're saying that because the stakes are trivial, we should be nice. One could turn this on its head: It might be far better if Senators were polite and listened to each other. if it's trivial stakes here in AH, it doesn't matter how civil we are, or how well we comport ourselves.

i don't see comments here in AH as any different from letters to the editor, or emails to Larry king, or speeches in person at candidates' meetings. you can't be wild and incoherent and PURELY insulting and nasty, but deviations from politeness and civility are not uncommon or demonstrably unproductive.