On Fri, 14 May 1999, K.M. Sutherland wrote:

> Ric's view is
> different in that he says that we -ought- to admire a range of work,
> implying a schedule of probity and circumspection. I disagree; that we
> ought to be aware of it, ok. But admire? How can this not be mere
> prejudice?

- I suppose if I'd said we should admire _everything_, or even _the full
range_ then this would be blind predjudice indeed, not to mention
downright difficult. But I didn't: in urging recognition of _a range_ I
guess I'm harking back to the spirit of Fox's "Answer that of God in Every
Man" (please adjust for sexism and deism): there's so many things going on
out there, Keston, it'd be a shame not to catch what they had on offer and
learn from them. I'm too young to have rigid opinions! I'd actually find
it a bit narrow - arrogant even - to imply that one were satisfied that
one had the Onlie True Poetrie onesself, and I'm sure you would too.

I'm sympathetic to the feeling that "Much of society is a straightforward
shriek to the effect that I'm precious and exclusionary" - known it and
railed at it at times myself for years, sure most of us have. One gets to
live with it. If the response to that becomes in any sense a putting-up of
shutters, then, truely, one risks becoming both those things.

You point, understandably, to the dodginess of considering as "mature" a
society which permits military idiocy to take place. I'd point to military
idiocy as an example of another kind of applied, sustained narrowness.

RC



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%