From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Re:  D Henwood and Question of "Open Mind"
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 09:30:39 -0500 (CDT)


    Concerning the question of "open" vs "closed" minds. All thought has to be
based on a closed mind. Does any member of this group seriously want to explore
the case to be made for palmistry or astrology? I would not, myself, be
interested in exploring anything with anyone who believed in palmistry. (Not
quite true: I pretend to take all student opinion more or less seriously.) In
any case, one cannot start from a blank mind. I prefer to start (not arrive but
start from) (a) atheism (b) a class view of human existence. There is an
endless list within those principles for doubt and differences, but I do not
wish to waste my time arguing with those who do not accept those princples.

Which is not to say that I won't work with Christians. A majority of those I
worked with on Central America issues were either Catholic or Presbyterian. And
I am currently working with Roman Catholics on the Mumia case. We do not,
however, debate fundamental principles. We discuss on the basis of a specific
set of principles: belief in "fair trials"; opposition to the death penalty;
and a few others (some explicit, other implicit). But in any case, "Radical
Democracy" seems to me to fall in with palmistry and Christians who won't work
with non-Christians even on concrete issues.




based
> At 9:50 PM 6/25/95, LeoCasey-AT-aol.com wrote:
>
> >To Doug (Time On His Hands) Henwood:
> >I had actually been waiting for my summer vacation next week to do a posting
> >on the issues you had raised concerning a radical democratic approach to life

> >in Crown Heights, as I wanted to take the time to do it properly. Not, mind
> >you, to convince you, since I learned a long time ago that when someone makes

> >up his mind in advance of listening to an argument there is not much purpose
> >in attempting to opening the hermetically sealled and closed brain. But
> >rather because it involves some interesting issues, questions which take a
> >little more thought and time than pointing out the obvious about Stalinism --

> >that is, obvious to all but the politically (and morally) brain dead.
>
> This seems almost one of those occasions where a blunt "fuck you" is in
> order. But I'll restrain myself. I asked the question out of genuine
> curiosity. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I don't think of my brain as
> "hermetically sealled and closed" (one misspelling and a redundancy, but
> who's keeping score?). I await the posting.
>
> I'm glad to see that the problem of Stalinism is so simple as to be dealt
> with in a phrase, a phrase requiring neither time nor thought. So much for
> history, ideology, and complexity in general. Stalin bad, _____ good. And
> all the badness can be explained as proceeding from one very bad man. It
> really simplifies the analyst's task greatly, that's one thing you've got
> to say for it.
>
> I'm glad too to see that morality is so self-evident. I guess when you
> don't believe in class, moral reasoning becomes a lot easier. Perhaps when
> you embrace the subtle complexities of RD, which we're told requires
> advanced training in philosophy to understand fully, you don't have any
> wetware left over to devote to such things as the analysis of "Stalinism"
> or "morality."
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Doug Henwood
> [dhenwood-AT-panix.com]
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------