At 02:57 PM 23-07-00 +0200, you wrote:
>Reg Boyle wrote:
> > I think it's interesting that in order that harmony be retained,
> > mutterings and free speech have to be subject to considerable restraint
>when
> > simple honesty and openness together with self imposed moderation
> > promises to be more productive.
Jan
>Perhaps I've got it all wrong, but I feel there has been quite a lot of
>moderated openness on this list so far, i.e. at least for the last months
>since I first logged in.
Dear Jan and Joel and anyone else interested,
I agree with you to the extent that it can be applied to those
involved
so I was tempted to narrow the heading on Joel's terms to " The Ethics of
Respect." Unfortunately that would narrow considerably the aim of the
original subject. We're hopefully not playing a game of chess when we
approach the act of communication on this list, because if we are, then the
difficulty of comprehending the intention of the writer will be obscured
even more so than as described in Les Taylor's letter of some time ago.
RESPECT, I note is writ large in the American psyche, I prefer the
term CHARITY of thought and action. In the dregs of television I've
heard the term 'he's diss'in me' which I now understand means.. ' he is
showing me rather less respect than I consider I deserve.'
Therein lies the problem. If in our writings we must respect each other
to the degree that what we _don't write_, is left to the interpretation of
the reader, then we are being either intentionally or subconsciously
dishonest and deceptive. When do I park my charity aside, look the
car salesman in the eye and suggest that he is being less than
forthright with me. Somehow honesty has come to not only include
the truth, but also the whole truth, without omission. The origin of
this may be lost in folk lore but in the days before printing it probably
had a great impact on how accurately information was passed down
the ages. Perhaps there's a lesson in that?
I accept that pushing the envelope of communications carries
risk, but I suggest it also offers a worthwhile advantage.
It has been said that 'printing' was one of the most destructive
inventions. This suggested that before the fact the human mind had
to be differently exercised in the acts of memory, verbalisation and
general thought processes. That it freed the mind to do other things
may or may not have been a good thing, yet they're all value
judgements without reliable historical information.
>Perhaps you are referring to battles fought long
>ago, when I wasn't around? I'm wondering what kind of discussion might have
>sparked off your remarks...
I think you're correct, the battles probably were fought long ago
and the echo's reverberate on all lists. Identification of a
difficulty is to me the first step, the next is whether to sweep it
under the carpet or confront it. So it appears that Caxton and
the makers of the atomic bomb, as well as having the same
effect on the human race, had the same defence, they only
made the thing, the responsibility for its use lies with others.
An update; A fellow tenor at another vocal group last night
told me that in his church Latin would not be acceptable,
yet, he said, some of the English translations are atrocious.
It gives a whole new meaning to respecting the Composers
Intentions and it appears ...just appears...that the rancour of
the past resides just beneath the aisle carpet.
Kind Regards Reg.
>Nevertheless, I share your opinion: a debate can only be fruitful when all
>parties involved in it express themselves, in a moderate way without
>insults. But that is what Common Sense is all about, isn't it?
>Puzzled
>Jan
Bravo
>Baritono not yet robusto (and even less lirico)
|
|  |
