As I have cogitated on this article I thought about how history as a whole have had ongoing levels of bottom level depravity, immorality, etc and seemingly volatile warnings, disruptions, regarding such, I. e. as Sodom and Gomorrah, Pompeii's volcano, etc. As humans we seem to swing to the edges of the pendulum rather than righteous living where we can be respectful and inclusive while not needing to go to the extreme of accepting the questionable behavior. Laws do so much to protect the few so that those few have all the rights. If a person says I will not serve you (my rights) they will pay a severe penalty. "There is no one righteous, not one" Medically, racially, financially and other realms we protect and force acceptance of them despite the damage caused by such actions (diseases, classroom disruptions, token positions). For instance, I was placed on a board as a token young athlete and knew nothing to help the board. I'm back to teaching values of respect and fairness but have little hope except in the smattering of individuals spreading examples of true care. Forcing others may create boundaries of just living but only true compassion for others creates true inclusion.
Thanks, Sandy. It sounds like you have a lot of thoughts on the topic. It isn't an easy matter. Your last sentence is an interesting one that suggests perhaps a third way of thinking about inclusion: that is can be grounded neither in beliefs, nor in norms, but in virtues -- and this last thing is the truest form of inclusion. I suppose one of the functions of norms is to attempt to establish what virtuous people would do. In that sense, they are second best. Given our human imperfections, however, they are a very helpful aid.
As your compositions have been in the past it is too large for me to absorb. ~ Couldn't you kind of break it down some instead of posting such a large document?
Thanks for your honesty! It is perhaps a bit lengthy but I thought at least this much was necessary to develop the argument. It is a tough subject, frankly, and I want to be careful. There is actually so much more I would like to say but did not. In any case, it is a good reminder that trying to say things as clearly and briefly as possible is important.
OK John - I take your point. My idea is that important as detail and clarity is that lots and lots of detail tends for emphasis on the main subject to get lost in the shuffle! This certainly your style.
All the additional wordage the main point blurs the thrust of the message - which was 'acceptance' not getting bogged down in the mire of transsexual, same-sex activity, abortion issues - and all the rest of the various controversial issues facing us today.
How about in three sentences: The way to build inclusive community is around shared norms. Communities built around shared belief tend to be narrow and exclusive. Most places where inclusion is emphasized today are trying to build the latter.
The kind of communities I'm talking about can come in a wide range of sizes. A college campus, for instance, or an office. In some sense, even a whole country is a political community that can have a set of shared norms.
I was raised in the home town of Colorado University. Some my earliest memories of those times included street riots complete with burning tires on the main street of the Campus. ~ I went too. It was exciting and memorable.
"In some sense, even a whole country is a political community that can have a set of shared norms."
I don't like to feel so differently form you but a whole country, reading off the same page? ~ Only totalitarian countries come to mind..
As I have cogitated on this article I thought about how history as a whole have had ongoing levels of bottom level depravity, immorality, etc and seemingly volatile warnings, disruptions, regarding such, I. e. as Sodom and Gomorrah, Pompeii's volcano, etc. As humans we seem to swing to the edges of the pendulum rather than righteous living where we can be respectful and inclusive while not needing to go to the extreme of accepting the questionable behavior. Laws do so much to protect the few so that those few have all the rights. If a person says I will not serve you (my rights) they will pay a severe penalty. "There is no one righteous, not one" Medically, racially, financially and other realms we protect and force acceptance of them despite the damage caused by such actions (diseases, classroom disruptions, token positions). For instance, I was placed on a board as a token young athlete and knew nothing to help the board. I'm back to teaching values of respect and fairness but have little hope except in the smattering of individuals spreading examples of true care. Forcing others may create boundaries of just living but only true compassion for others creates true inclusion.
Thanks, Sandy. It sounds like you have a lot of thoughts on the topic. It isn't an easy matter. Your last sentence is an interesting one that suggests perhaps a third way of thinking about inclusion: that is can be grounded neither in beliefs, nor in norms, but in virtues -- and this last thing is the truest form of inclusion. I suppose one of the functions of norms is to attempt to establish what virtuous people would do. In that sense, they are second best. Given our human imperfections, however, they are a very helpful aid.
I have read your text rewarding 'inclusivity.'
As your compositions have been in the past it is too large for me to absorb. ~ Couldn't you kind of break it down some instead of posting such a large document?
- F
Forrest,
Thanks for your honesty! It is perhaps a bit lengthy but I thought at least this much was necessary to develop the argument. It is a tough subject, frankly, and I want to be careful. There is actually so much more I would like to say but did not. In any case, it is a good reminder that trying to say things as clearly and briefly as possible is important.
OK John - I take your point. My idea is that important as detail and clarity is that lots and lots of detail tends for emphasis on the main subject to get lost in the shuffle! This certainly your style.
All the additional wordage the main point blurs the thrust of the message - which was 'acceptance' not getting bogged down in the mire of transsexual, same-sex activity, abortion issues - and all the rest of the various controversial issues facing us today.
Perhaps waiting for more feed-back is indicated..
Good morning, Forrest Asmus, ATP
How about in three sentences: The way to build inclusive community is around shared norms. Communities built around shared belief tend to be narrow and exclusive. Most places where inclusion is emphasized today are trying to build the latter.
John:
Well, OK ~ But how large is the supposed 'community'?
I invision the isolated religious communities for example.... Not so much South Los Angeles.
Good morning, Forrest
The kind of communities I'm talking about can come in a wide range of sizes. A college campus, for instance, or an office. In some sense, even a whole country is a political community that can have a set of shared norms.
John:
Roger your examples. I know such things exist.
I was raised in the home town of Colorado University. Some my earliest memories of those times included street riots complete with burning tires on the main street of the Campus. ~ I went too. It was exciting and memorable.
"In some sense, even a whole country is a political community that can have a set of shared norms."
I don't like to feel so differently form you but a whole country, reading off the same page? ~ Only totalitarian countries come to mind..
Good ,morning, Forrest
Thanks fur your post John.
Forrest, ATP