There is abso-deffo much in what John Gray writes in this extraordinary exegesis. Frank, your distinction between faith and belief (which you now extend to differentiating between religion and church) requires further thought and examination. Additionally, IMO, a third dichotomy, one which Gray subtly elucidates, involves the difference between "ethics" and "morals" or, loosely, "morality." I look forward to Gray's book on the basis of that measured intelligence alone.
Thank you, L. Lee, for this alternate-reality vision you've located for us. Appreciated. You disagree cordially; I suppose I am far less inclined to so do. I am curious to hear what you do find disagreeable about this admittedly valuable response (in an open and, um, er, ah, democratic way, that is).
Norman Geras writes, "Democracy exists far more widely today than it did 250 years ago . . ."
Bullshit. Nowhere does he define "democracy"; so, of course, he is free to make such blanket outrageosities. Leonard Cohen says it all when he sings, "Democracy is coming to the US, eh?" and, by deploying that "eh," I include Canada, a fact LC has confirmed he intended to convey by punning — double entendristic? — implication.
Democracy? LOL. We are free, alright, yep. We are totally free to do as we are told. End of glory.
Bingo, L. Lee. (I won't call you Ellie, EVER, promise.) You nail the hit on the heart of the (grey) matter. ITA. How can one commit to anything, let alone the efficacy of progress, without adopting a POV consistent with an a priori belief in it? IOW, Mr. Geras deploys a logical fallacy of the first order, the one I call the SNAFUBAR Construct™. To enter into a dialogue concerning such constructs defeats their purpose and befuncts 'em. (BTW, apologies for longish silence . . . life is what happens when you're busy making other pains).
There is abso-deffo much in what John Gray writes in this extraordinary exegesis. Frank, your distinction between faith and belief (which you now extend to differentiating between religion and church) requires further thought and examination. Additionally, IMO, a third dichotomy, one which Gray subtly elucidates, involves the difference between "ethics" and "morals" or, loosely, "morality." I look forward to Gray's book on the basis of that measured intelligence alone.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is an interesting and valuable response to Gray, one however with which I have some cordial disagreement:
ReplyDeletehttp://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/03/gray-on-graylin.html
Thank you, L. Lee, for this alternate-reality vision you've located for us. Appreciated. You disagree cordially; I suppose I am far less inclined to so do. I am curious to hear what you do find disagreeable about this admittedly valuable response (in an open and, um, er, ah, democratic way, that is).
ReplyDeleteNorman Geras writes, "Democracy exists far more widely today than it did 250 years ago . . ."
Bullshit. Nowhere does he define "democracy"; so, of course, he is free to make such blanket outrageosities. Leonard Cohen says it all when he sings, "Democracy is coming to the US, eh?" and, by deploying that "eh," I include Canada, a fact LC has confirmed he intended to convey by punning — double entendristic? — implication.
Democracy? LOL. We are free, alright, yep. We are totally free to do as we are told. End of glory.
Hi CED, my main point with regard to the Norm Geras post would be that I think a commitment presupposes an underlying belief.
ReplyDeleteBingo, L. Lee. (I won't call you Ellie, EVER, promise.) You nail the hit on the heart of the (grey) matter. ITA. How can one commit to anything, let alone the efficacy of progress, without adopting a POV consistent with an a priori belief in it? IOW, Mr. Geras deploys a logical fallacy of the first order, the one I call the SNAFUBAR Construct™. To enter into a dialogue concerning such constructs defeats their purpose and befuncts 'em. (BTW, apologies for longish silence . . . life is what happens when you're busy making other pains).
ReplyDelete