From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 12:23:14 MDT
From: "Jef Allbright" <jef@jefallbright.net>
> Olga -
>
> It seems strange that you clipped the main part of my post - the part that
> directly answers your question. I've replaced it, for correctness and
> completeness, following your question.
> [Replacing the text curiously omitted above]
> >> Some people who know better refer to "God" because they understand the
> >> political importance of this in gaining wide support for their plans
and
> >> goals. The use of metaphor can be an effective tool for connecting
with
> >> people who don't yet have the background knowledge to appreciate the
> bigger> >> picture, and can be used with integrity in such cases.
While some people who refer to "god" may use it as a metaphor, it is taken
by the religiously-inclined as yet more proof that another - VIP, scientist,
or who-have-you - is in *their* camp. (Abacadabra! Yet another
god-of-the-gaps turns into god-by-default!) Perception may not be
everything, but it goes a long, long way.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that sometimes to be
intellectually dishonest for the greater good is in itself a good.
At best, this is disingenuous. At worst, the metaphorer becomes an
"enabler" (to use the parlance of the new psychobabble). Maybe that's one
of the reasons United States denizens are far behind in intellectual
maturity when it comes to confronting the material world - they're
intellectually lazy due to the mollycoddling that's been done by
those-who-know-better but insist on acting paternalistically. We have
groups like the Boy Scouts who outrightly discriminate against gays and
nontheists. We have a Christian fundamentalist president. We have an
attorney general who practices speaking in tongues. Is this not - at the
very least - like, embarrasing?
Okay, whoever is responsible for bringing the "bigger picture" into focus
... step on it! (please)
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 12:34:55 MDT