Well, Phil, perhaps you're right. I've been handicapped by the pseudonymous nature of the people on Lit-Ideas. They are quiet and secretive about their beliefs until I apply a term they don't like and then they tell me I am all wet. As it happens I apply my terms to the squeaky wheels and tend to forget the others. Who froths eloquently from a Leftist/Pacifist standpoint other than Andreas, Irene/Andy, and Mike? There are one or two others that speak up angrily from a Leftist point of view from time to time, but they aren't ongoing or as clear as the others and I tend to lose track of them. I should qualify that to say that I don't find the political statements of Andreas, Irene/Andy & Mike at all clear. Mike gets ethereal about his pacifism. Andreas and Andy/Irene both hate America, Israel and their wars until I point out their consistent hostility to just America & Israel and then they both produce a Militant Islamic organization that they also hate, usually Al Quaeda. Their Leftism seems clearer than their pacifism but at times they claim things that are pacifistic -- especially Andy/Irene lately. In short, your complaint about my imprecise application of the terms Leftism & Pacifism is in my opinion a response to the imprecise statements coming from said Leftists and Pacifists. I can't manage to feel guilty about it. The only person on Lit-Ideas that I've met is Austin Meredith, a pacifist of sorts. He like you, if I recall correctly isn't an utter pacifist. There are certain situations that would cause you & he to support a war. In your case you would support war or a surgical strike, if I recall your statements accurately, against Iran to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons. I'm sorry but I have difficulty seeing you as a pacifist once you've said that. It seems for both you and Austin more a case of not wanting to fight all the wars that others want to fight than not wanting to fight any at all. You would go quite bit further than I would along the path of accepting abuse, dishonor, minor attacks, before you said 'enough is enough, let's fight,' but so what? Disagreeing about the wars we would fight isn't quite the same as disagreeing over the matter of pacifism. I hadn't looked at the Lit-Ideas photos for a while so I did that this morning. Every photo I looked at from June forward was pseudonymous. The impression I had (no doubt imaginary) was of people saying, "If you already know who I am then you know who I am. If you don't already know who I am then you really don't need to." So I suppose if I had identified myself as Alexandre Potemkin and written the same note, a number of people who don't normally speak up could speak up and chastise poor Alexandre for not getting their politics quite right. As it is they can speak up and say that to me, but then they've done that before -- before slipping back into silence and not being very explicit about what it is they do believe while they are engaged in chastising me. I was impressed by the knight Jack Sprat posturing nobly with his lance aglitter looking for enemies. So I put myself forward provocatively as an "enemy" of Leftists and Pacifists who claim to favor world peace but 1) have no plan for achieving it and 2) object, unreasonably in my opinion, to the people who do. Can it be that Jack agrees with me and can't find it in his nature to oppose me? Or is there some other explanation? Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: Phil Enns Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 5:26 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Song of Myself Lawrence Helm wrote: "Nevertheless I don't see why everything I've written in that note wouldn't have been just as understandable if I'd sent it under a pseudonym. What am I missing here?" Well, there are two ways of addressing the problem. On many occasions, people on this list have complained that the beliefs you attribute to groups like 'Leftists' or 'Pacifists' are inaccurate because in particular cases your claims aren't true. I am a pacifist and often what you say of pacifists simply doesn't apply to me. If your claims about 'Pacifists' are to have meaning, they must take into account what most pacifists actually believe. Put differently, beliefs are meaningful insofar as they are held by particular people. Terms like 'Leftists' can function much like pseudonyms in that they are constantly in danger of not being accurate reflections of what actual individuals really believe. If the majority of 'Leftists' would not be the authors of a particular belief, there is no authority to the claim that 'Leftists' hold such a belief. The other way of addressing the problem is the one I mentioned earlier. Amago and Spratt can post to this list all sorts of claims but there can be no certainty that these claims are the beliefs of the individuals behind the pseudonym. In this way, these pseudonyms may contribute what has the form of a reason but can't be a reason. Reasons are reasons because someone believes they are reasons to do such and such or to refrain from doing this or that. If there is no author for the statement 'I believe that ...' then there is no authority for the claims to be reasons. Reasons and claims regarding morality have their force through lives lived, and if we are confronted not with a lived life but a portrayed life, then we only have the form of reasons, lacking authority and ultimately meaningfulness. I have met Walter and he can hold me accountable for all the things I have posted to this list, but does anyone believe that there are individuals who we can hold accountable, in the same manner, for the things posted by Amago and Spratt? Whatever is contributed to the list by these pseudonyms cannot have the authority of being beliefs and so can never have the authority of being reasons for moral activity. Moral reasons depend on moral actors who authorize them. Where there is only the form of an actor, there is only the pretence of moral reasoning. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON