Farenheit 451 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Kalessin · 12-04-2002, 07:25 PM

Aiwendil, you will see from my post that I agree with you that both causal determinism (why do we always end up here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) or a general philosophical construction in this context of 'awareness' as an entitlement to choice, are not axiomatic or logically valid arguments for censorship in general or particular. However, I think that we do have a case for a certain level of "conjunctions", even if the variables make precise causal connections impossible to quantify.

As I said, there is a dirty reality going on here, and despite my idealism and my pretensions to philosophical rigour, I can see it happening. I reckon experience as a parent also brings you into this slightly muddy world of the empirical intuitive (my patented version of the categorical imperative [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]).

This is not an advocacy of censorship as some kind of perfect solution, by the way, I am in sympathy with your general arguments. I feel not so much angry as bemused that in a litigous country like USA the banning of books on religious grounds has not been challenged on the basis of the First Amendment, and I made the point earlier that here in the UK, without a Bill of Rights or other constitutional protections, the banning of Harry Potter is big news (that doesn't make the UK better, or more 'anything' than the US, but it is the contrast between legally enshrined freedoms and cultural practice that we are looking at).

However, and it pains me to say it, in the end all the causal variables DO mean something in the non-Cartesian day-to-day reality of life. The self-awareness of children in relation to body image, sexuality, wealth as a contingent to status, and so on and so on, these cannot simply be coincidental or meaningless. They may be merely a reflection of the same considerations within adult life, and morality is itself arguably a moveable feast, but conjunction at least is still demonstrable by comparison to even recent history.

As I said, as a parent I have had to take the bull by the horns at various times, in response to various situations, even knowing that philosophically I cannot precisely prove causal connections, but having examples of microcosmic conjunction empirically slammed into my face [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

If you take the argument about 'desensitising' for example - again not as an axiomatic validation of censorship in general - the point is not that children, even quite young, are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or quite subtly to perceive the presence of narrative device in TV, film or video that they know is NOT present in 'real' life ... no, they ARE able to distinguish, and they DO perceive. The point is less definitive than that, but is that familiarity with certain imagery IS conjunctive to the desensitising effect.

OK, I can make that argument by showing a group of today's kids a selection of horror films that were considered shocking 50 years ago. But what effects do these changing thresholds have, if any? Well, I would argue that there is a conjunction between this and the conception of the value of human life, for example. In the case of individuals, we unfortunately have to take account of such conjunctions, whatever our doubts about direct causality.

Or, to put it another way, there may be one hundred million variables of which some at any time are more or less important than another - but the point is that as aware adults we are directly responsible for some of those variables, even just a few, and accepting that responsibility means acting accordingly. It might be that we cannot always (or ever) directly attribute positive outcomes to our actions. But the responsibility is there nonetheless.

We could conceptualise a lifestyle where we choose not to 'accept responsibility' as formulated above - or say that a concept such as the value of a human life is irrational (unless its yours [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) - but this is much an act of faith in indeterminism as the religious faith behind those well-intentioned acts of censorship we find so unpalatable. It has no real merit in itself over and above any other action that is informed by perceptions and hypotheses.

So in this dirty reality I'm living in (maybe I'm spending too much time on the internet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) I can be passionately against censorship in principle and undertake it regularly in practice. I can be pretty adamant that causal determinism in itself, let alone specific chains of consequence, is unknowable, while shamelessly acting on the basis of assumptions and expectations, sometimes merely intuitions, precisely in order to engender caused effects ( [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]).

And in that dirty parental reality, my experiment yields the following highly scientific results so far - some you win, some you lose.

By the way, I am told by my 11-year old son that in his (inner city) school Harry Potter is viewed as "babyish", Lord of The Rings is "too over the top", but that The Matrix is ultimately cool. Hm.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

12-04-2002, 07:25 PM	#20
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Aiwendil, you will see from my post that I agree with you that both causal determinism (why do we always end up here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) or a general philosophical construction in this context of 'awareness' as an entitlement to choice, are not axiomatic or logically valid arguments for censorship in general or particular. However, I think that we do have a case for a certain level of "conjunctions", even if the variables make precise causal connections impossible to quantify. As I said, there is a dirty reality going on here, and despite my idealism and my pretensions to philosophical rigour, I can see it happening. I reckon experience as a parent also brings you into this slightly muddy world of the empirical intuitive (my patented version of the categorical imperative [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]). This is not an advocacy of censorship as some kind of perfect solution, by the way, I am in sympathy with your general arguments. I feel not so much angry as bemused that in a litigous country like USA the banning of books on religious grounds has not been challenged on the basis of the First Amendment, and I made the point earlier that here in the UK, without a Bill of Rights or other constitutional protections, the banning of Harry Potter is big news (that doesn't make the UK better, or more 'anything' than the US, but it is the contrast between legally enshrined freedoms and cultural practice that we are looking at). However, and it pains me to say it, in the end all the causal variables DO mean something in the non-Cartesian day-to-day reality of life. The self-awareness of children in relation to body image, sexuality, wealth as a contingent to status, and so on and so on, these cannot simply be coincidental or meaningless. They may be merely a reflection of the same considerations within adult life, and morality is itself arguably a moveable feast, but conjunction at least is still demonstrable by comparison to even recent history. As I said, as a parent I have had to take the bull by the horns at various times, in response to various situations, even knowing that philosophically I cannot precisely prove causal connections, but having examples of microcosmic conjunction empirically slammed into my face [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. If you take the argument about 'desensitising' for example - again not as an axiomatic validation of censorship in general - the point is not that children, even quite young, are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or quite subtly to perceive the presence of narrative device in TV, film or video that they know is NOT present in 'real' life ... no, they ARE able to distinguish, and they DO perceive. The point is less definitive than that, but is that familiarity with certain imagery IS conjunctive to the desensitising effect. OK, I can make that argument by showing a group of today's kids a selection of horror films that were considered shocking 50 years ago. But what effects do these changing thresholds have, if any? Well, I would argue that there is a conjunction between this and the conception of the value of human life, for example. In the case of individuals, we unfortunately have to take account of such conjunctions, whatever our doubts about direct causality. Or, to put it another way, there may be one hundred million variables of which some at any time are more or less important than another - but the point is that as aware adults we are directly responsible for some of those variables, even just a few, and accepting that responsibility means acting accordingly. It might be that we cannot always (or ever) directly attribute positive outcomes to our actions. But the responsibility is there nonetheless. We could conceptualise a lifestyle where we choose not to 'accept responsibility' as formulated above - or say that a concept such as the value of a human life is irrational (unless its yours [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) - but this is much an act of faith in indeterminism as the religious faith behind those well-intentioned acts of censorship we find so unpalatable. It has no real merit in itself over and above any other action that is informed by perceptions and hypotheses. So in this dirty reality I'm living in (maybe I'm spending too much time on the internet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) I can be passionately against censorship in principle and undertake it regularly in practice. I can be pretty adamant that causal determinism in itself, let alone specific chains of consequence, is unknowable, while shamelessly acting on the basis of assumptions and expectations, sometimes merely intuitions, precisely in order to engender caused effects ( [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]). And in that dirty parental reality, my experiment yields the following highly scientific results so far - some you win, some you lose. By the way, I am told by my 11-year old son that in his (inner city) school Harry Potter is viewed as "babyish", Lord of The Rings is "too over the top", but that The Matrix is ultimately cool. Hm. Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin [ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]