Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:42:44 -0500
Subject: Re: PKF: Science and Democracy, Sects and Hegemony II


David writes:

>>  The New York Times (NYT) article was intriguing as an exemplar of
some
of the things you're talking about. Please spell out abbreviations like
this the first time you use them, though: the list is very
international, and you shouldn't assume all members share North American
cultural perspectives and information.  <<

No disrespect for foreigners intended <s>. 

I had requested a "who" listing of list members but was informed that
command has been disabled, so I'm not privy to the same information about
this list you are, apparently.  At any rate, I was writing
list-informally, and  the New York Times is pretty international in scope
and audience too; thus recognizable by abbr.

Since this is an English speaking list, on such incomplete information, I
probably concluded in an instant to forgo the full name imagining that
just about every-body, foreign or native English interlocutor, would
recognize the abbr. instantly.  If I had been privy to the same
information on an equal-basis as you, I'm sure I would have given the
decision to abbreviate NYT more than just an instant thought and decided
instead to spell out the whole name.

>> No, I think you're working in a narrower set of referents. John's
point
was that the whole of Christianity, with all its internal brands, is one
sect within the world-wide context of all religions. <<

I know that was John's point but it's a meaningless point because it's
reductio ad absurdum.   You might as well dissolve all internal sectarian
differences in the world universally and say the human race is one
universal sect or set within the worldwide context of -ISMs or group
identities.  After all, beyond Christianity there's more generalized
theistic sects one has remained within the smaller set of theistic
brands.  For the whole of theism with all its internal brands, is one
sect within the worldwide context of more general belief systems.  Then
you can connect theism to the more general class of family resemblances
of cosmological belief systems containing theism, atheism, and
agnosticism, with the latter two having their own macro-recursive
sub-categories.  So you see the absurdity John's essentialistic top-down
generalizing leads to.

It's just a lot of labels.

>> You've remained
within the smaller set of Christian brands, and reiterated that you
don't subscribe to any particular brand. <<

As far as being a Christian, you can think of me as a free-agent...

As I made clear, I'm not in the set of any Chrsitian brands because being
non-sectarian I don't adhere to any sectarian brand.  I'm in the larger
set of your so-called sect of Christianity with these brands but I'm not
within any of them, or branded.  I might independently interact with them
informally or casually but I'm not deterministically part of one.  This
is simply a fact you and John for some reason can't deal with.

Since you call Christianity a sect because of a commonality linking all
Christians, do you think it would be fair to call Atheism a sect because
of a commonality linking all atheists?  Would you call the races sects
with a lot of ethnic and cultural brands amongst them?   One could
construct an artificial taxonomy of cultures also and draw sharp dividing
lines while nevertheless being hierarchically linked.

Thank God the U.S. Census bureau has finally decided to do away with
racial categorizing, and such multicultural balkanizing.

Secular Humanism is certainly a sect of atheism as Christianity is a sect
of theism, and so forth.

This kind of essentialistic categorizing is meaningless and absurd,
however, because it deals with identity only in idealistic group terms
not in existential individual terms; seeking to shallowly stereotype
rather than deeply understand.  And if you extend the rationality of it
to its limits, you might as well say the entire Cosmos is a sect of forms
and substances we're all part of alongside all other forms and
substances.

My philosophy of science and life is hylozoic (pre-Socratic) not
hylomorphic.

And then, of course, there are parallel cosmos and universes, ad
infinitum, to sect in :)  

I visit them in God Strikes Back from the mathematical perspective of the
Null Center.

>> I suspect this is a little like the unexplained abbreviation 'NYT' -
it
indicates that you have a little difficulty in getting outside your own
cultural (North American Christian) frame. <<

As I elucidated above my difficulty is not getting out of MY NAC <g>
frame; it's getting out of your trying to impose such a frame on me that
you've artificially and spuriously constructed for me, or are attempting
to against my will.

You've drawn this conclusion about my "frame" based only on the single
fact that I decided to abbreviate New York Times instead of spell it out.
LOL.

And if I were to get out of it, what other frame would I go to?

These are all your own group-centered  cognitive constructions that have
nothing to do with the real me.  The fact that I decided to abbreviate
something doesn't mean anything other than you had better information
than I to make a more careful decision.  And we all know information is
POWER...

In any event, your concluding that I'm NAC (as if that's a malady of some
sort anyway)  based on my NYT is 
meaningless and absurd like John's trying to categorize me according to
his stereotypes and essentialistic definitions.   It's just a show of
power on your parts.  In your case, information power; in his case,
ideological.  You can't draw any broad paintbrush conclusions based on a
single fact about an individual extrapolated without deeper analysis of
contingencies than just what appears to you necessary because of a name. 
This leads to rash unwarranted uncircumspect or knee-jerk conclusions


>> One of the things to which
you should be most keenly sensitive, from the kind of dissenting
position you are trying to occupy, is the importance of a sensitivity to
other cultures and traditions. <<

Once again, you're accusing me of insensivity based on the fact that I
abbreviated a well-know name amongst English-speaking people of whatever
culture.  ROFL.  It's obvoius you're extremely over-sensitive.  If any
"foreigner" on this list was offended by my use of NYT nearly as much as
you were, I'll proffer him or her an apology.  But I'm not apologizing to
you about it.  Did the non-NAC's get together and appoint you their
defender or representative of this gross wrong and insult on my part?

Now I know what they mean by "compassion fascist." 

The nature of my dissent has nothing to do with new heights of laughable
sterile PC or meaningless multicultural correctness you are exhibiting.

That certainly could even be something else of POWER to existentially
dissent or rebel against.

>>  In other words, rather than defining
yourself as a Westerner of the opposition party (like being a Republican
in a Democrat Congress, in US terms), it may be more powerful to look at
other traditions (like being a Green Independent in Australian terms
(sorry I don't know the US equivalent)) which will allow the things you
do value - life, love, God - to be embodied in your living. <<

Again, I didn't define myself as anything, you and John are doing the
defining of and for me on your own terms; based only on how I identified
myself loosely and non-ideologically; extrapolating very specific or
certain conclusions based only on uncertain, questionable and limited
facts.

So you're saying it's okay to define oneself according to the things you
ideologically agree with in order to achieve definite value but one
shouldn't define oneself according to parties you don't agree with, at
the risk of being insensitive to other cultures?  Whatever, consistent to
my values I already made clear, I don't associate with any political
party in any terms or traditions.  You seem to be assuming I would
despite me already making clear I wouldn't.  But I guess if had spelled
out NYT you'd have to assume some other conclusion based on no facts.

You are also spuriously assuming I have a desire to be "powerful" in some
sectarian cultural or political way, and in ideological party terms,
after I made pretty clear I find this kind of social behavior distasteful
and ruinous.  And I find it amusing, troubling, and sad  that you also
assume that being anti-"Westerner" or anti-American is the only way to
Dissent by while posturing yourself from an ideological vantage that
would likely not tolerate dissent much more than North American
Cultural.... 

Robert Basso.

  
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu