Re: mindfulness and freedom

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 01:22:22 -0700 (PDT)

> >Let's not pretend that the enemies of "ideology" don't mean
> >what they say; they do, and should be held accountable for their
> >beliefs.
> Again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'what they say', and your use of
> the term 'enemy' seems to cast anyone who does not agree with you as
> someone who is somehow against you personally. I think that this
> approach to dialogue or debate is one of the facets of ideology that
> drove me away from those particular systems of thought--I might relate
> to the actual system, but I don't find the conflict created by
> statements such as the above productive to the kinds of exploration I
> favor.

The first personalization in this discussion was yours above, not mine.
I have said many times, loudly, that I don't and never will give a damn
about the personalities involved in a rational discussion, and my
record on that is very clear. I am responding to the words printed,
and only those. I merely suggest that when someone says he is opposed
to ideology, that we ought to believe that he is opposed to ideology,
not that we misunderstand him. To me, that very statement itself is
evidence that I am attacking the words, not the man.

The word "enemy" is simply the word that fits the structure of the
sentence I chose, and it means precisely what the dictionary says it
means, not what you might psychologize about my motives. Personally,
I value quite highly those who disagree with me--especially those
capable of doing so with rational argument.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC