Apr 21, 1997 02:16 PM
by Thoa Tran
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>> The philosophies of political
>> correctness hold that the individual ego is the most important part of
>> the mind, and rejects the concept of a higher level of consciousness.
>> Bart Lidofsky
>Which "philosophies of political correctness"? It is not a philosophical
>tradition - its a political category created by right-wingers who want a
>return to the good old days when women and minorities knew their places.
>And so far as critiquing it because it is "ego"-based - well, so is
>virtually all of modern politics, economics, art, literature, a lot of
>science, etc., etc. shall we do away with all of that as well? The groups
>that complain most about "political correctness" - conservative
>republicans and christian fundamentalists - they are *not* "ego-based"?
>Really? And so far as being "untheosophical" - I might point out that HPB,
>a woman who travelled the world and insisted that some Asian religions
>were far superior to western Christianity - would be considered by todays
>fundamentalists as the very height of "politically correct".
Well said, JRC! That was exactly my thinking. You saved me a few words in
this post. In other words, under Bart's definition of political
correctness, the T.S. is politically incorrect, therefore untheosophical,
and just about anybody else.
I'm not well-versed in the definition of post-modernism in relation to
writing. It seems from Bart's definition, that it is the same as the art
definition. Post-modernism came as a reaction to "Eurocentric" male vision
of big, abstract, or minimal art. In architecture, the death of modernism
is the death of idealistic, sharp, clinical space that does not support
personal requirements of space-privacy, individuality, etc. Thus, art and
architecture in post-modernism became personal, vibrant visions that also
includes female and minority visions. Women, in particular, rebelled
against the cold and aloof modernist vision. Women artists and critics
embraced the warm personal visions. I remember some of my women teachers
stating how in class, they had to paint these big, abstract pieces, while
privately painting small, sensitive landscapes.
Bart's example of the communist political system is absurd. Anybody who
follows something without thinking it through is only a conformist, either
that or afraid for his/her life. That goes for following any "Eurocentric"
male vision, also. Bart's definition of political correctness just seem to
be indicating a "Eurocentric" (not you, Bart, just general :o)) male's
elitist point of view. We would all love it if everybody just shuts up and
quietly follows our point of view. Now, in regards to Titus' statement on
political correctness, what is wrong with considering people's feelings?
What is wrong with analyzing a belief and to see its possible error? It's
easy to make a general sweeping statement, but in some applications, it can
I hope this makes sense. I've got busy weeks ahead of me.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application