King Lear wrote:
>Parochialism means narrowness of thought. Stick with what I said.
King Lear, do you suppose you could possibly be snottier? this didn't quite do it for me. i like it *really* pissy. next time you'll do better, i'm sure.
also, if you could possibly point out precisely how what i typed differed in any way whatsoever from your sticky definition, i'd sure appreciate it.
you said: "Parochialism invites co-optation. The reason is simple: you have a particular problem and a rich benefactor offers to help you"
so which is it? or are these related somehow? is it narrowness of thought that invites the co-optation because when you think narrowly, then you're more likely to take monies from a benefactor? or is it simply accepting financing from a benefactor that's the problem? how are the two related? i'm not quite sure how one leads to the other dear King. that was my question. pretty straightforward the first time.
>said, again, "Parochialism invites co-optation", I didn't say "partial
>parochialism", I didn't say "causes".
and a fine example of a retrospective "this is what i meant girly so get off my case i don't want to answer your questions" to boot!
this partial parochialism bizzo, don't get it? how would this be possible?
partially narrow in one's views..hmmm. another stumper. now, mr. sticky definitions, do you suppose that if you are only partially narrow in your views then you could no longer be labelled parochial? why not call it partially broad in one's views?
It is easy to focus on single
>issues, on the problem of the moment if you don't think broadly
>enough.
profundity: 2.5
oh! grade inflation so make it: 5
If you do this, you will often miss the trail of blood
>leading up to the corporate helping hand, and this goes for idiots who
>bray against the "paralysis of analysis" as well as the less
>insulting and perhaps better-intentioned.
well, again, i do believe you're avoiding my question. is there a place to 'fight the power' outside of power. where ya gonna get the money from? eh?
>Free speech was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech was
>squelched viciously from the get go and was only won by working people
>after a long struggle.
well no kidding. this is *precisely* the point. a constitution is a social contract or compact as they used to called them. this means that people have to support it, uphold it, agree to it and if they don't then they change it or get rid of it. it is not god-given or natural, in other words. recognizing this in no way excludes an analysis (a la parenti et al) of the constitution or ensuing struggles over it. in fact, such an analysis rests on the assumption that a constitution is created by fallible human beings and social institutions.
the problem, of course, is that these critiques of the constitution simply reinscribe the very logic that y'all despise.
>We seem to forget that the words on the paper (merely a "parchment
>barrier" according to Madison) are appropriated ex-post facto to
>locate the sources of our freedom misleadingly in the Constitution and
>not within grimy struggles of the "great beast". We are told we can
>speak freely on the corner due to the Constitution. Rubbish!
oh agreed. but what would it take to get people to recognize this? hmmm. oh, wait! you've started an answer, below:
We can
>speak freely because of the hundreds and thousands of people who lost
>or risked their lives in an anonymous struggle against tyranny which
>bolstered its brutality with appeals to the Constitution, not to
>mention the flag and other symbols of hate.
oh, yes, indeed. of course, why didn't i think of this: an historical narrative, a story of the truth of the struggle, the blood, sweat and tears that guarantee those freedoms etc. as opposed to symbols like the flag. now tell me, how is the story you tell different from the story that the flag tells? not how they substantively differ, but in the way they operate, the mechanisms through which you'd distill these truths of the struggle to everyone. how would you ensure that everyone gets it right?
>>1. appeal to the constitution is pretty powerful stuff, symbolically. you
>>can use it to your advantage. ...
>
>I abhor appeals to patriotism and other forms of fake solidarity. Our
>rights were not given to us by anyone, land-dweller or deity.
>Locating our rights in the Constitution is to abdicate the most
>valuable claim we have: we are humans with intrinsic rights to
>associate with whom we please, speak freely, etc.
and what would you have had martin luther king do? langston hughes? now he wrote some mighty fine poetry denouncing the communist org that he belonged to as, similarly, perpetuating a 'fake solidarity'
>"Contaminated" ... really. A document prepared in secret by the
>richest of the rich and their scribblers, ratified by only a tiny
>fraction of the population, and it's merely "contaminated".
why don't you answer my question rather than quibbling over my choice of words, as whimsical as you might find them. i think that's more productive don't you? or perhaps productivity and collaboration and working through an issue in some semblance of civil discussion isn't what you really want?
>I'm comfortable saying we have a variety of rights because of our
>intrinsic nature. I'm not interested in squabbling with you over
>this, just as I'm not interested in squabbling with Jessie Helms over
>my rights he'd like to take from me --- this is not a negotiable
>topic.
it would appear that you are quite interested in squabbling...why bring it up?
cordelia wrote:
>>parochialism may well be inescapable and it may not be a bad thing. there
>>is something wrong with the opposite, too --doncha think? people learn to
>>be moral people in situated contexts. they then learn to be more universal
>>as they acquire abstract thought. ...
to which King Lear replied:
>People are well-equipped by 8th grade for the abstract thought needed
>to understand most things of importance in public life. There's no
>excuse for adults to eschew it and to pass on to others this mode of
>thought.
perhaps you could explain exactly how what you wrote has anything whatsoever to do with what i wrote?
>>simple, not easy. damn good thing too, i think. the question is, William,
>>how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something
>>abstract, distant, big? ...
>
>When I read Noam Chomsky, I feel he brings in the broad picture quite
>effectively. Ditto with Doug, Michael Perelman, and many others. I
>think it's a matter of getting these sorts of things in front of
>people's faces early enough in their lives so they can shield
>themselves from the vast torrent of deceit.
well yes, i'll even buy this at the discount you're selling it at because it seems you just want to say something regardless of whether it has anything to do with what i typed, King Lear. did i not provide an example of community activism that sought to do that and was successful? getting factory workers to see that it was about global economics was important. getting NIMBY groups to see that radioactive dumping is a global problem and that the gov't is n't the enemy but the corporations that produce the waste are too. or another one i didn't mentioned: worker training programs and their limitations
an example of starting with a local, narrow struggle and getting people to see the big picture. and WOW funded by benefactors like the Spencer Foundation, etc.
>Again, I think symbolism is poison to critical thought. We've got
>enough symbols intruding upon our minds. Let's leave them out.
>
>I find Thomas Ferguson's theories on democratic action careful, lucid,
>properly narrow in scope, and extremely illuminating. Several other
>folks have done some good work in domains near his that I find
>useful as well.
well i's afraid i don't care for the invocation of these symbolic figures to stand in for your meaning. i mean chomsky, henwood, ferguson....these are the new heroes to replace the washingtons eh? kewl by me, but i think you might want to just give a wee bit of thought to this: i'd argue that you are simply constructing a new cannon of stories, narratives, founding tracts, manifestos, and heros to replace the ones you despise.
thank you for stooping. i'm sure it was rather painful.
cordelia