Hi Rick!
ROG Wrote:
....In this
> case, I would suggest that rather than rewriting history, that we preserve
> the truth of this photographed incident and that we use other statues and
> monuments at the sight to recognize diversity and other social values. The
> site can have social values in ways that don't violate intellectual
values....
RICK:
First up Rog, I'll mail you $20 if you can show me even a single
instance in which anyone involved in this thread has suggested 'rewriting
history'. If you think that's an accurate representation of any position
that has been offered, you obviously haven't been reading very carefully.
I'll extend this $20 offer to all here, asking only that if nobody wins,
people STOP responding to this ridiculous strawman. There is NO value is
responding to points that nobody has made.
ROG:
I'll give you $21 if you can show I accused anyone ELSE of suggesting it. I
AM suggesting that this MAKING STATUES POLITICALLY CORRECT can be viewed that
way and that the issue IS being viewed that way by many people. And no, I am
not concerned with any potential for the incident to be lost. To be honest,
I am not drawn to the statue topic at all. I find it rather silly.
RICK:
Third, assuming the statue has/had any 'Intellectual Value', you must
first demonstrate why that value is dependant on the racial composition of
the depicted figures. Without this much, it's ludicrous to try and assert
that changing the racial composition reduces that value. Then, you'd have
to show how a change in racial composition reduces/violates/offends the
Intellectual Value more than other changes (ie. scale, the use of models,
the statute was to be in Brooklyn while the photo was taken in Manhattan,
etc....). You'd have to answer these questions even just to show how the
Intellectual Level is relevant to the controversy. And then you'd have to
demonstrate how there are no countervailing Intellectual (or other general
MOQ) canons at work... which is quite a task in itself.
ROG:
The intentional value in the racial diversity is obvious. It is the reason
it was introduced in the first place. A socially diverse statue appeals to
modern social values. It has particular social quality. The other issues
are insignificant to the social issue. This issue is well known as a
determined attempt to rewrite the history as represented by the statue in a
definite way that will make the issue more socially acceptable. I think you
are just stirring up dust....
And yes, rewrites of history for film also lack a level of intellectual
quality. They may be more entertaining or socially acceptable.
ROG:
> Please note that the focus of this thread is the MOQ's effectiveness as a
> moral guide. The fireman statue is just a case in point.
RICK:
But Rog, we HAVE been discussing the MOQ's effectiveness as a moral
guide. The point here is that MOQ is of questionable value when applied to
everyday moral questions like the statue because any predetermined
conclusion can be reached by simply couching one's terms in the language of
levels that produce the desired outcome.
ROG:
This is called...what is the term ... an agreement.
RICK:
If you want the statue to be immoral you call it 'an historically
inaccurate representation of a photograph'. If you want it to be moral you
call it 'an historically accurate representation of a multi-racial fire
department, partially modeled on a photo'. Neither one is these
DESCRIPTIONS can be called 'truth'. Anyone who's read Pirsig's books should
know this.
ROG:
And if you want to value both truth and diversity, you can accomplish BOTH.
ROG Wrote:
Look for solutions that are win/win, not win/lose. They aren't always
possible to find, but where possible, they can help point the way to higher
quality.
RICK:
You say this, but you ignore the fact that I have presented you with the
win/win solution. If you describe the statue as a 'an historically accurate
representation of a multi-racial fire department, partially modeled on a
famous photo' then even the most anal historians couldn't suggest that
Intellect is violated (a WIN for Intellect) and Society is left
unconstrained to choose the statue that it believes to be the best vehicle
for whatever values it seeks to embody (a WIN for Society).
ROG:
Yes, I concede that this solution fully meets my standards for high quality
in both levels. Labeling the statue (or explaining poetic license at the end
of a film) would make it socially acceptable and more truthful. I can
suggest 3 or 4 other solutions as well. Sorry if I ignored your views, as I
was intending to address the larger issue rather than your particular posts.
Rog
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST