X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:50:07 -0800
From:         Peter Montgomery <MONTGOMERY@CAMINS.CAMOSUN.BC.CA>
Subject:      Re: Deep beliefs
Comments: To: WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

> From: torkel@SICS.SE

> But this description of how you propose to argue with Hitler
> bypasses completely the question I asked.

If its does, then you didn't put your question clearly enough.
I rather suspected that we had to bring things down to this
narrative approach in order to get at whatever was bothering you.

> Since you object to my mocking Hitler, but not to my saying
> bluntly to Hitler that his

Well pardon me indeed. I never meant to imply that I would accept
other forms of disrespectful style. I thought we were talking about
mockery, but I'm sure there are other equally inappropriate approaches
to having a serious discussion with a person about beliefs they
hold very dear. I may well communicate to Hitler that I find his
beliefs vile and beneath contempt, but I would find words and style
appropriate enough to let him know that I mean no offense, that I
only mean to let him know why he should expect difficult responses
from me, should he choose to try to impose his values on me. I admit
one has to undertake such a discussion VERY delicately (and prudently
from a distance I would agree). I have in fact had such discussions
with people, both as a politician and as an ecumenicist. I recall
one such debate with a woman concerning abortion. I was applauded
for the respect for and knowledge of the other side which I showed.
On another occasion I was engaged in a mutual exploration of beliefs
with a Seventh Day Adventist. We found much in common, with several
interesting surprises on both sides, but he really found my beliefs
concerning the Blessed Virgin, most unpalettable. For him they were
the worst form of idolatry he could imagine. He put his statements
with great directness (bluntness ? No, I think not.), but also with
great respect, with a special concern that our good friendship not
be put at risk.

> If your present remarks are to be at all relevant, your doctrine must be
>that one should not bluntly insult people's beliefs either, by declaring them
> revolting and beneath contempt, but should follow your proposed approach
> in confronting people about their beliefs.

Either we've been misunderstanding each other here, or you have changed
the point to which you are objecting. As indicated
above, I see no place for any style of disrespect in the putting of
my understanding of the objectionable qualities of someone's beliefs,
but I see no reason for not communicating as directly as possible, just
exactly how objectionable I find them, and that is what I thought you
were saying with your various references to "beneath contempt" etc.

> But then we have no reason to
> single out "mockery" in particular, but are dealing with the wider question
> of how one should confront people about their beliefs if one wants to
> have a meaningful discussion with them.

Fair enough. I never had a problem with such a position. So why did we
single out mockery? Just because I put my objection on more concrete
specific grounds, instead of something more general? Are you suggesting
that I was thinking TOO clearly?

>>I guess (but I'm sure you can tell me much better) the reason I dislike
>>the idea of belittling even the most contemptible of deeply held beliefs
>>is precisely because they are so DEEPLY held.

> Well, this is what I suspected, but I had to wait for you to say it
> yourself.

How nice of you. I guess I had to wait for you to put your
question in such a way that I could answer it to your satisfaction.

> You "admire commitment of the will", you feel that "deep
> convictions reach to the most fundamentally human elements in a
> person", and to "mock such commitments is to mock humanness itself",
> and this quite independently of the contents of these convictions.

That's what I said, more or less.


> Your attempts at a pragmatic justification of the "no mockery"
> principle, which frankly were pretty feeble, we should perhaps just
> set aside.

You may have read my statements as pragmatic justifications.
Frankly, I haven't been trying to justify anything. I was simply
trying to explain what I think, in order for you to be satisfied
about my inability to think things through. Whether you find my
explanations to be justifications or not is certainly your privilege,
either way. I must admit I was having a hard time figuring out
what you wanted explained.

> This deep admiration for "depth" and commitment and
> fanaticism, no matter in what cause or on the basis of what beliefs,

I seriously doubt that fanatics are moved by deeply held beliefs.
The very notion of DEPTH is inimical to the BLINDNESS that is
characteristic of fanaticism.


> is found in a lot of people of an intellectual bent in the murkier
> reaches of (mostly) right-wing politics and religion.

Would that explain why I ran for the Green Party in our 1984 federal
election?

> I can't say I myself respect this deeply felt conviction regarding
> the sanctity of deeply felt convictions.

I don't recall anyone asking you to. All I wanted was a rule for
WORDS-L that would suggest that profanity is inappropriate, but then
that was when I was under the mis-impression that there were limits
to verbal behaviour on WORDS-L, and that someone was more or less
responsible for some mild form of chidding on occasions of violation.
Obviously no such limits exist, so my desire is rather futile.

> But then I also sometimes make fun of beliefs for which I have
> great respect.

There are ways and ways of making fun. I suppose playful teasing
could well involve a certain degree of mockery, without being dis-
respectful. I rather doubt that even that would be appropriate for
such situations we have been dealing with.

Or, could it be that you are saying you sometimes disrespect beliefs for
which you have great respect? If the latter, I should be quite grateful
for an example.

I am, however, really glad we had this "debate," if only because it has
gotten so delightfully side-tracked by some deeply held attitudes derived
from certain Anglo-Saxon terms for bodily functions and parts.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU