[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:56:24 -0600
"The only thing we know for certain is that we know nothing for certain."
This is the crux of the Oshevsky-Geary feud. Walter would say: "The only
thing we know for certain is that we can know some things for certain." For
example? Walter is quizzed. "Example? There is no specific example. We
don't currently know anything for certain except that we can know things
with certitude." Walter responds, And how do you know that? "Stands to
reason." Walter smirks. Yeah, right.
Actually, I agree with Walter. I assert that the opening line in this post
is for certain -- until it's proved wrong, that is. I certainly make
transcendental statements -- they are projections of my provisional beliefs.
I believe things -- prejudicially -- for example, Eric's list of ways to
avoid being prejudicial is an wonderful example of what I would dub "Knight
of the Enlarged Soul Redneck. ('redneck' being eponymous with prejudice --
yes, I assert we're all rednecks of one stripe or another). Eric believes
with no evidence to support him that a large soul and an enquiring mind is
preferable to xenophobic rejection of otherness. I believe that too, but
recognize that there's no evidence for it, only preference for it.
Preference is prejudice (admittedly "prejudice" is the pejorative form of
preference, and often socially deleterious, but I prefer the term prejudice,
just as a way of shaking you by your shirt front. "There's no way to know,
damnit, get it through your head, there's no way to know, only to believe."
This I know.
Mike Geary
Memphis
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
