Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00179)

Thoa Tran wrote:
> 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.

	The T.S. is and should be politically incorrect. How does that make it
untheosophical?

> 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 art. It is when it was misapplied to things like science and
historical fact (as opposed to historical opinion; historical fact
being, for example, that the U.S. dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan;
historical opinion, which IS subject to postmodernist interpretation,
would be whether or not the United States was justified in doing so).
Note that I compared postmodernism to a hammer; quite suitable for some
tasks, but worse than useless on others.

 
> Bart's example of the communist political system is absurd.  

	So is the communist political system, as practiced in China and the
Soviet Union (as opposed to certain Roman Catholic monastic groups,
where, although it is not named "communism", is, and has worked for
centuries).

> Anybody who
> follows something without thinking it through is only a conformist, either
> that or afraid for his/her life.  

	George Orwell wrote about it. But, since the ideas were not palatable
to the people of 1948, he pretended that he was writing about the
future, and called it "1984".

> 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.  

	Please explain how.

> 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?

	Nothing.

> What is wrong with analyzing a belief and to see its possible error?  

	Nothing.

	What IS wrong is presupposing a belief is in error because you don't
like it, and assuming it is in error in spite of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Just because an idea is politically correct does not
automatically make it INcorrect. But if it is correct, then it does not
need the adverb. And the adverb is ENTIRELY about ego. 

	Bart Lidofsky