Chrisman 43

If this is getting off topic or otherwise violates the rule of this board someone please let me know and I'll desist. Otherewise, in the spirit of, well, spirited debate, I'll continue.

First, thanks for your post. I'm always interested to hear another view, even if I disagree with it. Which I do. Here goes:

Just whose judgment is good? Well, mine of course. That's my argument. Not all ideas are good ideas and some shouldn't see the light of day. Some should even be suppressed by the government. (See the example of child pornography above.) But those ideas that make it to the marketplace are subject to the whims of everyone's judgement. Mine, yours, their's over there. Let the best idea win. And if yours loses, no whining about it. (And, yes, the NEA has a say. A taxpayer funded organization owes it to its "stockholders" to exercise good judgement.) Just because you find something beautiful and I don't doesn't mean my judgement is faulty. You may find (to use the example yet again) child pornography just lovely but I, and most of the rest of society, don't. And, even if we didn't, there are some ideas that are just plain wrong, no matter whose judgement you use. (Another extreme example: it's never a good idea to exterminate 6 million people because of their ethnicity.)

I consider Picasso's cubist art to be work barely above that of my first grader's daily art projects. Now, I love my first grader and so consider her work great art. Not Picasso's. And I realize that puts me in the minority. (And, yes, believe it or not, I understand it. Still don't think it's great art. Now, let's talk Impressionism. . . ) But they are considered epoch making only because its reputation has been inflated by art critics which has, in turn, driven the price of Picassos, any Picasso, to exorbitant prices. Doesn't make it great art. Others disgaree. I can live with that. Does it mean I believe they should be suppressed. Of course not. Nothing in my postings have said such a thing. But if someone did have a mind - which would be an individuals right, by the way - to sock every Picasso away from sight, I imagine the world would find a way to carry on.

I don't believe in the slippery slope argument. I believe you have to take a stand. Does taking that stand mean a stricter stand is justified further down the line? (The heart of the slippery slope argument.) Nope. It's easy to turn back when you've taken a wrong turn. So, yes, censorship in some cases is a good thing, others maybe not. But that doesn't mean all censorship is a bad thing.

If I come across as strident, I apologize. It's my intent to carry on a civil conversation. I hope someone will let me know if I'm out of line in content or tone. Otherwise, the ball's in your court, Chrisman 43.

Pete

After following these posts in recent days, a few thoughts:

When others are harmed, then limits must be placed on the means by which the injury occurred. Children are innocent, defenseless, and open to all sorts of subtle and obvious forces that could cause them physical and psychological damage. Pornography is wrong! It does not belong in a freely accessible medium (internet, libraries, bookstores) for the "sake of free speech!" We can not yell "fire" without concern. Some books are more appropriate in one setting as compared to another.

We have become so sensitized to every microscopic "right" that we may have indeed lost the path we wish to be on (as did those "PRIOR" to F451 - the topic of this string).

So what to do? Working/playing/creating so as to be morally correct is the high ground! Oh, I know, who is to decide this??
The founding fathers looked out for the good of the Country and the lifestyle it was to represent as time passed and the culture grew and matured. In receiving the torch that has been passed to us, are we creating a culture that seeks the high ground? [CEO's stealing millions; so called heroes and stars with unending drug raps and sexual permiscuities - and still they win the awards and seem "above it all"; reality (!?)tv programs taking the place of evenings of conversation, interacting, or reading as a family. The high ground!

As a parent and a teacher, I strive to stay the course. My children and my students will be a reflection of what I have modelled. A great responsibility (a key word) and challenge.

If a movie is PG or PG-13, the little guys can't go! TV - very limited, no prime time trash. In my classes, NO "R" videos related to literature studied. End of the story!

Vulgar language not used and not allowed. Courtesy is expected at all times. A simple approach practiced daily.

I can honestly say that in the many years I have worked with hs to college aged students (teaching, coaching, advising), I have never used an expletive to admonish nor make a personally important point. Yes, sometimes it does seem like an approach that would be deserved by "those who just don't get it!" However, what would it teach?

Why should prime time tv be a breeding place for vile attitudes and personalities?
Like the firemen of F451, no one any longer knows the truth. [RB: TV - a really dreadful influence on all of us. Don't ever look at local television news again. It's all crap. There's no news, there's no information. It's negative, negative, negative. You look at that, and you think the world is coming to an end.]

By no means am I sanctifying my own ways and words. I am, however, offering an alternative (at least at home in my daily encounters) to what have become the not always pleasant norms of today's social and media offerings.

In the long run, I like Mr. Bradbury's common sense approach, "Recreate the world in what you do and say and make it a better place for your having been here." (Speech at Brown University, 1995)

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 11-26-2002).]

Oh! Oh!

All these postings... encourage me to ...mind as well rock the boat::::::

pterran::: You made the staterment: 'Whose judgment is good? Well, mine, of course!"

Okay...how about this?:

Is Nard's judgment (that's me) any good petaining to what he thinks is right? Answer: Nope!

You see.... I look at things from a Christian perspective. That means, I begin to understand 'truth' because the 'character' of Christ enables me to do this.

Wait a minute, someone may ask. Who is Christ? What is Truth?

Christ is truth!

But What is truth?

Who He IS!

Okay, Who IS He?

He is the Perfect expression of Peace. Perfect expression of Compassion.

You want to know what is right or what is wrong? Read about how He did things and lived His life!!

He is the Perfect expression of every human emotion...that is to say, every human emotion contained in its... right order of expression as intended by...! ... Oh...this will rub a lot of people wrong.... as intended by Christ Himself.

Everything that it means to be a human being ..."begins and ends"... with the personality, the character, of Christ.

Well...if that character of Christ takes home in my soul, my personality... then what is "truth" begins to evade my consciousness. You see...it is no longer what "I" think of something.

That's one of the reasons why there are so many churches. Thomas Jefferson didn't buy the whole Bible...so he "censored" anything that offended him. He did his own little version of Fahrenheit 451. You ever see a Thomas Jefferson Edition of the Bible? Find one in an old bookstore. A young child can pick up a full volume with no effort. It's thin, and ...missing a lot of info.

If you believe this much...and this much only?? Well, there is a church down this street here for you.

How 'bout this much and...a little bit of that there...and don't forget to twist the original language a bit to suit your needs....Well, there are these churches for you over there...

You do accept all of that, except for these three chapters...Guess What? There's this here organization that'll love you as a member. Come one, Come all! To this place, or that building, or that city.

Censorship abounds!! There's good censorship and bad censorship. Some throw the baby out with the bath water. But then there are some that throw the person out that threw the baby out with the bath water.

It really, really, really...all boils down to one simple factor. What do you believe truth is!!! And guess what? There a lot of people who do not believe there is such a thing as "truth", or think that truth is relative...everyone has their own "truth"!

Wow! In that case, let me clue you in on the people that'll just love to have you at their monthly luncheons....



[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 11-26-2002).]

I've been away for a few days. This is an interesting outgrowth from the beginning of the string (seems like a relevant outgrowth to me).

There are so many questions here:

Who decides what is or is not of value within the confines of a community? (We just watched a Miss World contest in Nigeria indirectly lead to the deaths of over 200 people because a journalist's comment inflamed fundamentalists. Rioting is clearly a means of censorship. But who decided that the Miss World competition or the comment on Mohammed's alleged taste in women provided a sufficient justification for 200+ deaths and the destruction of peoples' homes and businesses?)

Is there a Truth with a capital "T" or is truth really a small "t" issue? (Living in a pluralistic society makes this question much more difficult to wrestle with. When there is only one source of Truth, and only one body ascribing to it, Truth is an easy concept. But pluralism makes this a bit more complex. Pragmatism is one of the philosophical systems to mature in America (a very pluralistic nation) and seems to do away, in part at least, with the very idea of worrying about a truth-with-a-capital "T" aspect.)

Does Pluralism mean there is no Truth that can be cited as absolute -- that the idea of a truth crosses (or ought to cross) cultural and religious boundaries? (How do people who ascribe to different ideas about the source of life, the role of personal liberty and choice, or a sectarian verses a religious view of life, ever expect to agree on a single definition of truth?)

If we allow censorship, where do we draw the line? (Is the slippery-slope argument a compelling argument against ANY censorship, or can we put the brakes on censorship when it begins to cross some perceived personal liberties?)

Can truth hope to prevail where censorship means that only particular aspects of truth will be open to public discourse/discussion? (Wasn't the point of the first amendment to provide a framework in which the free exchange of ideas would allow the best ideas to work thier way to the top? Is there risk in intellectual freedom? Of course. Are there lines that can be drawn? Child pornography has few defenders, the statue of David seems to have few serious detractors.)

The guestion of who guards the guardians seems applicable here, also. (Who are the censors? Do they make blanket rules -- many of which would cause portions of the Old Testament to be deleted? Do they censor based on prevailing attitudes in any given culture at any given time? In some nations in Africa, 16 year old girls are topless all the time. If a 16 year old girl were to run around in my town topless, there would be action taken. Our dress standards are not the same as they were just 20 years ago. Also, does censorship make distinctions between the ages? I like the movie rating system. I see people take chldren into R movies and I think they are morons. But as an adult, I feel I should have the right to see an R movie. So who decides the age-appropriateness of these kinds of distinctions?)

When I read F451, I was amazed at the power of ideas. In the arguments throughout the story, the reasons for censorship seemed powerful (preservation of peace, lack of conflict, inner peace, etc.), but the book is very clear that the control of thoughts, discussion and ideas was something that created boundaries on man that took away the ability to be fully human.

Does this mean there are no ways to control the spread of evil? Of course there are. But I think the first question is whether or not censorship is a necessary step. If it is not, maybe the lesson of F451 is we should not do it. In Bradbury's interviews and stuff, he feels we have lost decency and that is a bad thing. Does he want censorship, though? I can't speak for him, but I think in many cases (except when we seek to protect children) WE need to be our own censors.

Mr. Dark: Sounds like you were bitten by the Political Spider. Are you contemplating running for office?

Non-Politcally speaking...do you believe there is one truth, or more than one truth?

How do "YOU" define truth?

Or...do you think there is no such thing?

I've answered all these in my posting above...So you can't say I'm asking something I wouldn't answer myself....

You know, I hate it when I'm asked to answer my own questions. Posting obscure, arrogant questions is the easy part -- and I think I do it often, if not well. I love to dangle these posited ideas and pretend to be quite the intellectual. When I get called on it, it is very embarrassing. Nevertheless, it is good to be humbled periodically.

Although I WAS bit by a spider, I've always had an academic interest in politics. It goes to my Ray Bradbury story-of-origin. Reading F451 led to all his other books, which led to Sci-Fi, then everything else. When reading Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" I mentioned (to my dad) the idea Heinlein posits in that book that you can't vote or have citizenship until you have given two years of voluntary service to the government (military or peace corp type). My dad's response was to literally pull down Plato's "Republic" and suggest I read that. I did. I then read Aristotle's Politics. This was in high school. The theory of politics has been interesting to me ever since.

Do I believe there is one truth or more than one truth? Mankind has wrestled with this for thousands of years. I'm not sure we have an agreed resolution as a species. So, subjectively, do I believe there is one truth? I guess you have to go to your next question first, "How do you define truth?"

That is a tough question. Starting off with the American Heritage Dictionary (I only use dictionaries with patriotic names!), under "truth", it says this: "conformity to fact or actuality. Fidelity to an original or standard. Reality, actuality."

But what is "actuality"? Dictionaries are so unhelpful sometimes. I think in the broadest sense, truth is simply "what is". Is there an objective reality "out there" -- outside man's perception of it? I believe that there is. The problem, in my mind, becomes one of epistemology. How do we know what is true? How can we verify that what we believe to be true is true? The claim to truth is all well and good, but how does that claim get verified? This verification is both subjective and communal.

The empiricists say it is done through a verification of the senses. The mystics say truth transcends the physical realm and that is is subjectively verified through a direct encounter with God. The empiricists say the mystics are fantasizing as a basis of truth. The mystics say the empiricists have too narrow a scope to understand what truth really is. The problem with the mystical path seems to be its inability to provide repeatability outside the subjective scope. That is, people with different culutural backgrounds will have mystical experiences verifying their own backgrounds, mythologies and prejudices. On the other hand, I agree with the stated problem with empiricism -- it simply does not cover the entire range of human experience. Faith, emotion, and feeling are simply beyond the scope of it.

So I guess, for me, there are truths that are subject to verification through the senses -- experimentation, repeatability, etc. But I also believe (here's my opinion) that there are truths that transcend the physical realm, and I further believe that those truths can be subjectively verified through personal experience. I also accept the apparent fact that these experiences, because they are subjectively encountered, will or may be interpreted differently, based on the kinds of background the seeker has. We may be seeing the same truth through different terminology and mythology. Does this make the underlying truth less true? Or does it make it not true?

The wrestle I have is that I believe in an objective truth or reality. I believe some of that can be verified through empirical means (scientific, experiment-based activities). But I believe there are truths that are not subject to that kind of objective verification, but require a subjective encounter. For many, this subjective component makes it, by definition, un-universal, and hence, not objectively real. But I believe there are truths that can only be encountered subjectively.

So, where do I come from personally? I have been unable to come to a theory of truth without combining parts of several different systems of thought. This personal synthesis of New Testament, Transcendentalism, Existentialism, Buddhism, Pragmatism, etc. has meant that I am sometimes a bit unorthodox in some of my opinions. What would constitute my fundamental religious orientation? Christian. The focus on God coming down to make himself a direct participant in his creation, his willingness to suffer AS a man and FOR all mankind is the perfect example of the highest law as he defines it -- to love God and to love man. In the life of Christ and in the Sermon on the Mount, I believe we see a depiction of God's view of what would constitute a perfect personality. I definitely believe in an afterlife, but cannot truly define exactly what that will be. What can I say . . . I am a work in progress.

Is this unhelpful and vague enough?

Er, um, I think we've wandered rather far afield in our discussions of censorship. Not that that's a bad thing!

But to boil everything down to its essence, it seems we agree that sometimes censorship is a good thing. (Child pornography is about the only example I'm able to come up with. Anyone else?) But, overall, because we're unwilling or unable to take a stand and define what truth is, it pretty much should be a free-for-all in the marketplace of ideas.

I might go along with this but I wish to make a further point, which is what I had begun to do in response to the article on the poet Baraka. Not every response to an idea is some sort of censorship. Firing Baraka from his post doesn't hinder his ability in the least to publish his drivel elsewhere. Preventing "graffiti artists" from plying their trade doesn't stop them from creating their works on canvas. Shoot, even child pornographers are free to detail their sick fantasies in print and publish it on their on websites. And rioting and murder in response to an article is not a form of censorship, no matter how odious we find it.

I think we sometimes confuse an unwanted response to an idea or work of art with censorship. Because I don't like something or disagree with something doesn't mean I'm censoring it.

Nard, it's interesting that you bring a Christian perspective to these discussions. I, too, am a born-again Christian and didn't mean to imply that my good judgement comes from a strong, humanistic belief. Rather, the use of my judgement acknowledges the gift to be God-given. And, like all such gifts, it should be used for the better. And so I do. As, I'm sure, do you and most of the rest of us.

Which brings me to a similar discussion we had in our last Sunday school class. What are our duties as Christians when it comes to consuming culture? I favor a more passive response - a vote in the marketplace but refusing to buy the illicit magazine or tune in to the offensive television shows or avoiding the dark and dank websites. (And even though I wouldn't use the service, I think these companies who clean up recent movies for more wholesome consumption are, in fact, a good thing.) Others seem to prefer something more active - letter writing campaigns, boycotts.

Either way, it goes to show you that being a Christian in the secular world is no easy thing. Every day, you're faced with making decisions. Which brings me back to my other point about using your God-given judgement.

Pete

It's a good point that not every negative response represents censorship. For many, censorship ONLY involves the action of a government body to close off speech or activities PRIOR to an event occuring. While this is probably true, strictly speaking, events like the Nigeria riots and Miss World represent a kind of cultural censorship that has the same impact -- it supresses the free exchange of ideas that seems necessary to the discovery/development of truth.

The government gets yelled at when it decides not to fund artwork that is offensive to large segments of the community. It is accused of censorship. But in the case of art, they have not really outlawed it, they have just decided not to fund it. Someone else can fund it, or the "artist" is free to be a struggling artist for awhile.

There is a balance and judgement involved in the prior restraint of ideas and actions. In part, this is and ought to be determined by a community's prevailing standards.

Yep! The above postings are provoking a torrent of responses....

Fahrenheit 451 came about because it ....seems to be a society run by those who lost touch with truth.

I go by what Christ said was truth. He said HE was "truth." That means...for those Bible scholars out there...it was HE thru which "all" things came into existence, and it exists solely because it is infused with His very character.

And he has "infused" us with Himself, (there's the reality of it all)...so that ... among other things...we can begin to understand what perfection means ( of Him) and what sin means (of I, Me and Myself).

Montag discovers "truth" in the books he reads. Truth prevails! Have we forgotten what are The Machineries of Joy? Pick up a copy of Ray's book and read it.

When I was really crazy and in High School, I got into the elevator, at 1 o'clock in the morning, in Chicago, with Hugh Hefner. He was being sued by Chicago for obscenity. And I sat thru nearly all the days of the trial. (This is in part response to Mr. Dark's final statement on last posting:: (Hey, where did this smiley face pop up from??Hmm)

I remember what Hefner said as we both traveled up to the reading of the verdict in court: It was ...." Twenty years from now they'll all look at this as stupid."

Well, he was freed based on ...standards of the community vs: decency of the community. There was a split vote, a hung jury. Look around...times have changed. Truth today is freedom "without"...truth!

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 11-27-2002).]

No wonder Montag had to struggle so to consider the lilies.

Hey!

We are not finished talking about this subject yet.....

Here's a Question:::::

Is 'SPIN' Censorship?

You could start a veritable minefield if you included differing views of historical events (either disputed as to what really happened, or as to whether they were actual events at all) as "spin."

Define "spin".

Those who use "it" say it just gives context. Those who hold to a different view (different from the view being spun) say it cynically distorts truth. I think when we say "spin" we basically mean to create a climate where your version of an event is shown in the best possible light. Is this always dishonest or a distortion?

As to the comment on community standards, I am a fan of both freedom and Christianity. But when a community (i.e., the Taliban) creates an enforced climate where one version of The Truth is given legitimacy -- and enforced by law -- over alternate versions, we have given up a free society. This is one of the reasons I support Israel. In Israel, you can worship however you please. This is NOT true for most of her neighbors.

Do I believe there are absolute truths and absolute standards? Yes. Do I also believe that there are areas of thought/behavior that just don't rise to the level of being absolute? Yes. I see one of the problems as being that people sometimes claim absolute truth on things where absolute truth may or may not be involved. There are cultural variants in dress, for example, that some deem to be immodest, and others deem not to be immodest. Those standards change. If "normally" dressed women were sent back to the 1800's in a time capule, they would be run out of town. Which standard is right? Did the standards of modesty that prevailed in the 1800s really reflect absolute standards of modesty? Some of these things ARE (and, in my view, ought to be) based on the prevailing standards of the community.

Well, that's my spin, anyway. . .

P.S. Nard: with your interactions with Ray Bradbury and Hugh Hefner, you have certainly had a more interesting life than I have had!



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 12-11-2002).]

Mr. Dark?

Interesting? Lots of it was plain wasted.
As a Christian I know that God can restore what has been wasted. He has already done that. But I still find a huge emptiness and want in many areas.

Is any of life wasted? We obviously waste time in the present -- and time can't be recaptured -- but in retrospect; where we are is a result of where we've been. That includes "wasted" time.

If I recall correctly, you have actually worked with Ray on things and been to his home, etc. That is pretty cool stuff. Here's my litany of encounters with fame:

(1) Met Ray and he autographed a book for me. I was so overwhelmed by his presence (he literally changed my life!), I was practically incoherent.

(2) I was running around at LAX airport and literally ran into Robert Redford -- nearly knocking him to the ground. He is as good-looking in real life as on film. And he was VERY good natured about the accident. Had a good laugh about it and asked if I was okay. Seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

(3) Met Dan Quayle at a book signing. Seemed like a pretty congenial guy, although it was one of those signings with a huge line, so you basically got the autograph and moved on.

(4) Ansel Adams allowed me to photograph him at a book signing. I was able to shoot a roll of black and white film as he signed books. THAT was pretty cool.

As far as emptiness goes, I think that's part of the human condition. We attempt to fill it in many ways -- some use healthy means, and some unhealthy means.

Anyway, a bit off-topic from censorship in F451.