Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00190)

JRC wrote in response to a posting by Bart:

> 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.

I now regret using a term that has such a history and such emotions attached
to it. It is kind of ironic that my original post was about confusing a
concept with its popular misuse. Since I don't want to "return to the good old
days when women and minorities knew their places", let me change "political
correctness" to "aklsdhfklasdh".

As Thoah pointed out, one has a certain responsibility when he communicates a
concept such as Aklsdhfklasdh to explicitly differentiate it from any agenda
attached to it. Along with my explication of Aklsdhfklasdh, I should have
added a few words. So let me do so now ...

You can speak frankly with a person, but you have to be sure of your
motive. If your motive is *truly* on helping them rather than on being 'liked'
this is a sign of respect. As Thoah rightly pointed out, there is a false kind
of frankness, namely, indulging your own cantankerousness. You insult a person
and say, "But it's for your own good."  Or you violate their volition and say,
"Do what I say. I know better than you or God who has placed you in your
environment for a reason."

This *is* unfortunately done a lot. When my saintly spiritual teacher died,
one of her successors misused the concept of vajra and indulged her
power trips under the guise of "holy concern" for us and a desire for us
to have "spiritual discipline".

I have met very, very, very few who truly use the vajra appropriately. Vajra
means "thunderbolt" (paging Doss for a better translation). It means you blast
away a roadblock in a persons path with plain-speaking when a sugar-sweet
approach is inappropriate. It should be used very judiciously and with no
sense of evil satisfaction.

Thoah wrote,

> Now, in regards to Titus' statement on political correctness, what is wrong
> with considering people's feelings?

I trust I have explained what I "really meant". Let me explicitly add one more
thing that I left implicit: A corollary to frankness is reassurance. For every
step of frankness you probably should have two of reassurance.

OK?