i think the most interesting thing in this "Bennett" debate is the relationship between "unpopular" perspectives and "accepted" perspectives. notably, how these "unpopular" perspectives and opinions are held up to a more intense brand of scrutiny (ofcourse). wheras if one presents an unpopular opinion one has to provide much more evidence whereas accepet views are merely "understood". this is most interesting in regards to evolutionary contexts of thought proccesses. the "unpopular" view is stregthened by this scrutiny and the accepted view is weakened by it's untested acceptance or the "popular" views' resistance to scrutiny. which is a little baffling (not really) when a view is so resistant to a mutually beneficial relationship. i.e how would we know that "nazis" are bad if there were no nazis?, or the converse, how would we know a "popular" view would be corrupt with no Socrates? i've come to the understanding that if i don't get attacked for some of my statements i may be doing something wrong. ofcourse just stating things to get attacked is silly. so i have two good criteria, restrictions so to speak in which to make statements...."if i make a statement that doesn't get attacked i must be stating an accepted view, fair enough but if i make a statement just to be contrary to accepted views then i am i have no justification for stating them." out of all the broad range of attacks the i've recieved the only legitimate concern was Deborahs' i think, that i'm just stating things to be contrary or to get attention...simply i don't think i was doing that, or i wouldn't have done it. but obviously i need to provide some evidnce and the only thing i can point to is that i've been a subscriber to fluxlist off and on for quite a while and if i were doing that i would have "stirred up trouble" long before now. i remeber a while back getting irritated with some of that guy Dick Higgins' views on how the sixties was so much more interesting i.e. better than now or something. which i thought that view was asinine, defeatist, and just pure "nostalgia" pathology, of which i am vehemently opposed. ofcourse i didn't feel compelled to "attack" because he didn't keep saying that over and over nor bombard repeatedly me with that view. he was entitled to that view. though i must also point out that i'm not the authority on whether i am just "trying to get attention" or whatever but neither is Deborah so the issue is just subjective conjecture on her part (and mine as well). jason pierce rep. FAPA
