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:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:56:12 -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

> are really nothing to the point. First, there is still no explanation of
> why you object to mockery, but not to attacks and denigration. Surely
> everything you say about mockery being an obstacle to understanding etc
> could as well be said about attacks and denigration? Second, supposing I
> have formed an opinion of certain deeply held beliefs, which I believe
> I understand well enough, why should I abstain from mocking them, on your
> view?

Seeing as how you and Marty want to do all my thinking for me, I should
probably just sit back and let you two do ALL the work. It might be
interesting to learn what I do think about this subtle distinction.

Let's see now. I have a discussion with Hitler about racial purity.
He tells me how great it all is, and I point out to him what I TRULY
think (and TRUTH here is an important factor, although I suspect it
is yet another victim of current attitudes). I explain my points clearly,
and indicate the fundamental evil that I see in what he is preaching.
In effect, I engage in a complete analysis which produces a large
inventory of all the things I find wrong with his point of view,
why I find them wrong and the degree to which (beneath contempt, etc)
I find them wrong. I also say -- I don't intend to offend you by these
statements. I am simply trying to communicate to you the full dimensions
of my disapprobation, so you will know what they are. Seems to me that
there is no room for mockery in such an approach, if I do want to know
that he has heard me, and respects what I say, even if he most strenuously
disagrees with me. As soon as I start to make fun of what he thinks
(which, I guess, is my definition of mockery), I probably put him off to
the point that further discussion is useless.

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. I admire commitment of
the will in a world which does its best all day long to avoid even think-
ing about commitment. DEEP conviction reaches to the most fundamentally
human elements in a person. To mock such commitments then, is to mock
humanness itself, even when those convictions seem to run counter to
human values to the 'nth degree. It is almost a truism that deeply com-
mitted opponents in a war also have VERY deep respect for their enemies,
even while loathing all that those enemies stand for. Probably the
greatest single reason that the US lost the Vietnam War (its second
loss in history, btw. The first was to Canada), was its lack of respect
for its enemy. That lack was rooted in its own lack of respect for
itself in the war -- no deep commitment on the basis of deeply held
convictions. No bloody wonder it's such a national nightmare for so
many US people.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU