From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 23:29:32 MDT
Damien writes
> At 08:10 PM 9/15/02 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >Is it *impossible* to unearth the unarticulated
> >assumptions that underlie each position?
>
> It's pretty hard to get people with strong opinions even to
> *listen* to the case built from different perspectives.
But, strange as it may seem, I *do* understand why
people often *cannot* listen to the case built from
a different perspective. Because the case invariably
rests (so it seems to me) on deeper assumptions not
stated that appall the reader. I, for example, find
everything completely wrong from each leading sentence
of each paragraph of some documents or narratives, and
it just doesn't make any sense to try to "understand" it.
I am truly amazed that you can do it, if that's so.
> candidly marxist; I personally do not subscribe to Franklin's ideology, but
> I find his detailed analysis quite thrillingly and disturbingly effective.
Perhaps your differences with him occur at a high enough level
that you can either "suspend disbelief" or find your ideological
differences irrelevant? (Lee groping for a canny explanation,
recoiling from the uncanny.)
> Yet I have the feeling that dedicated and clever Heinlein
> enthusiasts such as James Gifford *simply could not bear
> to read* Franklin, even if their eyes tracked all the words.
Possibly. This effect, of pronounced revulsion, occurs
IMO when one must read a dispassionate account of facts
that do not support one's position, or that embarrass
one or one's allies. So possibly Gifford not only
couldn't understand Franklin, but might in addition
(and quite separately) be too repulsed to accomodate
the unwelcome insights.
> Now maybe this is appropriate and understandable, given certain premises.
> Would anyone bother to read a long denunciation of Martin Luther King's
> writings (since that's all it would be, surely) by the Grand Imperial
> Wizard of the KKK?
A perfect example. A conservative might be able to wade
through such, even without being a racist, in just the
same way that you are able to read Franklin without being
a Marxist. In particular, one cannot entirely discount
the possibility of some brilliant person in the KKK making
trenchent criticism of MLK just the way that Franklin
perhaps criticises RAH.
> Still, there are surprising findings in Franklin's study
> that help account for Heinlein's impact and also his limitations, and they
> are not going to be unearthed soon by a critic more sympathetic to RAH.
> Does it help to know that Franklin's own ideological position is radically
> leftist? Of course, and luckily he makes this blazingly apparent in every
> sentence. It is an *objective* fact of his reading position.
Then I submit that you are not entirely uncomfortable with
his ideology. If you were, I submit, then this would be
impossible for you. Every sentence indeed!
> I wonder, though, how many people on this list can observe
> their own axe-grindings with equal candor?
I wish that you would elaborate on this point. (See below.)
First, though, we should assure others (if you agree) that
you and I are not hypocrites: even though we often have our
own axe to grind (and do so with relish), we are capable of,
as you say "observing" that this is what we are doing.
Specifically, what exactly does it mean to "observe one's
own axe-grinding"? You could mean "bias", but maybe you
mean only "viewpoint", for example. Or perhaps you have
something else in mind.
> Is this comment at all relevant to your point, Lee?
You've gotten quite warm! Thanks. But is there a
clear, numbered list in your mind as to *Why*? Did
you like my four or so reasons? Or did you find them,
alas, only reflective of my situation on the political
spectrum? (On one of them, I *tried* to be as critical
of the way rightists dismiss leftists' views, but I
would have had to do more re-writing to get there.
But one can see that I did try.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:03 MST