Thank you @CSTownsend for your support and appreciation. Knowing that I brought a smile to your day certainly brightened mine!
Thanks for the question. Objectivity is the universal second language for humanity, and it unites us with all people who try to think objectively. Perfect objectivity is impassible, as you point out, but more objectivity is better than less objectivity. Perfect justice is impossible, but we still believe in justice.
I hope you make it clear to other UUs that you think objectivity is not only impossible to perfectly achieve but also something not worth striving toward.
1 Like
Thanks, I sure passed this along to our congregationâs other delegates. âScienceâ seems to be the thing that people miss the most.
1 Like
Thank you @JonathanTSeattle for your response.
Maybe you could re-read my post for clarification as it seems that you either missed or misunderstood what i wrote?
But, for convenience sake, Iâll try to clarify any confusion here.
Words only have the meaning that we attribute to them.
If Xusie uses the word âfreedomâ to mean âdo whatever you like regardless of consequencesâ and Zybil uses the same word to mean âequality of opportunityâ or if Xusie thinks of âGodâ as simply âthe unity of all natureâ and Zybil uses the same word to mean âYahweh, who spoke to Moses, father of and in union with Jesus, as interpreted from Biblical scriptureâ then these two people cannot have a meaningful exchange regarding those words unless and until they clarify what each of them means by those terms. Likewise, you and I seem to approach the term âobjectivityâ quite differently.
As I wrote to @Janet:
Having explicitly stated my stance, I donât see how you could misinterpret that. Your subsequent response to me about âobjectivityâ struck me a bit like the rhetoric of a Catholic inquiry in the Medieval ages (identical text with the word âobjectivityâ replaced by âGodâ, âGodlyâ or âgodlinessâ and âUUsâ replaced by âChristiansâ):
God is the universal second language for humanity, and it unites us with all people who try to think godly. Perfect godliness is impossible, as you point out, but more godliness is better than less godliness. Perfect godliness is impossible, but we still believe in justice.
I hope you make it clear to other Christians that you think godliness is not only impossible to perfectly achieve but also something not worth striving toward.
Therefore, (I trust you understand) I cannot accept either the credo of âobjectivityâ as an article of faith for UUs nor the very conditions or framing of your implied contention about me any more than a Medieval atheist could consent to the idea that disbelief in âGodâ equates to a dismissal of âjusticeâ.
Would an atheist agree that aspiring to obey âGodâ remains a worthy goal if they donât believe that such a âGodâ exists?
You may use the term âobjectiveâ as you see fit and as much as you like, yet when you apply the term to my own beliefs, does it not seem only fair and reasonable that it takes on the meaning that I give it, not the one you give it, if you want to understand my thinking and not just affirm your own?
If you say, for example, that you believe in the primacy of âtraditionâ then I would not necessarily categorize you as a âtraditionalistâ with all of the baggage that accompanies how scholars often define it. Instead, I would hear how you define the term and then, through that, try to understand what you mean.
Do you believe that other cultures and societies applied principles of nonpartisanship and fairness to investigation and mediation prior to colonialism? Then, if you find a good word to sum up such universal practices instead of âobjectivityâ, Iâll sign up.
However, the language and rhetoric of âobjectivityâ, by its very use and consistent reification as a mythical but non-existent practice, has de facto centered the so-called âEnlightenmentâ and specific philosophers (largely from Germany, France, and Britain). As with Medieval âgodlinessâ, the ideology and rhetoric of âobjectivityâ gives dominant âwhiteâ society the upper hand on determining the criteria for assessing success in the goal of achieving universal goods (such as justice, fairness, and reliable results). This very same ideology and rhetoric simultaneously provides an ever-present caveat: actual godliness/objectivity remains impossible. Therefore, whenever, however, and to whatever degree the class in power (the same class that has the authority to determine what qualifies as âobjectiveâ or âgodlyâ and what does not) do not live up to said criteria, they/we have an excuse.
âObjectivelyâ speaking (to use your language), one cannot wholly disentangle the myth of âobjectivityâ and its close association to âwhitenessâ from the simultaneous colonial projects of exploitation, expropriation, and extermination that coerced European, African, Asian, and American workers of all colors to labor under arduous conditions to supply said philosophers with the time and resources to ponder.
Even today, in a supposedly âpostâ colonial period (how much of the world really feels decolonized?), the implicit bias of the language of âobjectivityâ permeates academia. How else can we explain the âobjectiveâ fact that centuries of âwhiteâ philosophers âstriving toward objectivityâ have consistently failed to reasonably allocate time, funding, positions, and curriculum space to ânon-Westernâ philosophies? Does it really seem that hard to obtain even a semblance of âobjectivityâ, provide more-or-less similar resources to a broad variety of philosophies from around the world, and educate students with a general sense of how similar ideas got varied treatment by Indigenous, Chinese, African, Middle-Eastern, or Indian societies?
Two philosophers caused a stir some years ago by suggesting that any philosophy department that failed to do so and âregularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself âDepartment of European and American Philosophy.ââ
How do you think philosophers who strove toward âobjectivityâ responded to their seemingly reasonable and fair suggestion?
(See If Philosophy Wonât Diversify, Letâs Call It What It Really Is. I wonderâquite subjectivelyâif, after reading their book Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto, you would remain unmoved and equally committed to the language and ideology of âobjectivityâ.)
If I have substantially erred in my thinking or logic, then I trust that you, Janet, or anyone else can provide reasoning to correct me. Otherwise, I retain the (as always) tentative position that I do.
I do not imagine these questions as easy to discuss, much less resolve. To the contrary, they seem as pernicious as they seem important (hence, the time I devote to it).
But I do imagine that if we consider the ideas collectively and thoughtfully, we can parse through the most difficult terrain together.
1 Like
Youâre welcome. My response canât possibly do justice to yours, but it sounds like you disagree that objectivity is the universal second language of humanity. Thatâs probably the root of our disagreement.
I donât know. I try to avoid thinking in terms of âisâ altogether. Probably one (additional) root of our disagreement.
Anthony, wow. As you well know, I am both a professor of linguistics, and I teach academic writing at the university level. The number one recommendation and admonition to undergraduate students is to utterly avoid the verb, âbe.â it is empty, sloppy, and lazy. I tell them that there is nothing wrong grammatically with the verb âbe,â but it reveals a lack of thought. It is a signal to think more.
The insight you bring me is I had not extended that to real life. Thank you. Anthony. I will see you soon for dinner.
Ha ha, I donât know if you intended that, but well-done, subtle, recursive humor there!
That said, a memory feels permanently etched in my brain now: reading D. David Bourland, Jr., the primary pioneer of E-Prime (use of English without the verb âto beâ), describe how his initial attempts to eliminate the verb âto beâ from his writing gave him terrible headaches!
To me, that testified to both the emotional difficulties of such challenges as well as the degree of physical changes in our neural pathways required to alter the basic structural tools of our cognitive and communicative processes. Yet, when I read physicist David Bohm state that he felt that verb-based languages more accurately described fundamental aspects of reality (such as quantum mechanics) than noun-based languages, that suggested to me that it may well feel worth it to make the effort and set off on a new adventure inside oneâs own brainâŚ
Anyway, I do appreciate your sweet comment. So thank you, Bek, and I look forward to a post-GA dinner soon too!
Note: I understand these threads will be closed for comment tomorrow. I wanted to note that the Blue Boat Passengers lay-led discussion group on Facebook will remain open for another couple weeks, and those who wish to use the group to find each other and coordinate about the 15-congregation amendment process may do so (must read the rules and the pinned post before engaging).
Here are some comments about the 15-congregation amendment process, from Donald Wilson, who used to be on the GA Planning Committee:
"âUnlike how the amendment process was run for this GA (ie at the discretion of the moderators and board), the process youâve mentioned is bylaw and subject to little to no interpretation. I wouldnât wait however. You need to get the petition from the UUA Board Secretary in the next couple weeks, and you have to have it turned Into the Board before February 1st.â
âIf one congregation has a thought, send an email to 50 others and say âwe are discussing X. What do you think?â
That is also the kind of thing that we have District and Regional assemblies for, both in person and virtual.
That is also the type of thing your religious professionals should be talking about at their regular meetings with their colleagues like minister Association chapter meetings.
It is the responsibility of your board president and other trustees to be deeply aware of the affairs of your closest congregations.
You discover by being in relationship and talking to one another.
You coordinate by email and phone call, same as we have for the last quarter century.â
âYou donât even have to have a congregational vote. You just have to get their board to sign off.â
âETA: IMPORTANT NOTE!!!
You HAVE to check the bylaws of the local congregation. There are congregations scattered thru the entire Association who DO NOT let their Boards sign off on such a proposal and REQUIRE it to be a Congregational vote.â
15.1(c)(4)
At the next regular General Assembly following the process described in subsection (c)(3)(v), above, the Article II proposal is subject to amendment only by a three-fourths vote in favor of an amendment submitted to the General Assembly in writing by the Board of Trustees or a minimum of fifteen (15) certified congregations, as described in Section 15.2 of these Bylaws. Final approval of the Article II proposal requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly
âŚ
15.2(d)
not less than fifteen certified member congregations by action of their governing boards or their congregations; such proposed amendments to Bylaws must be received by the Board of Trustees on February 1 whenever the regular General Assembly opens in June; otherwise not less than 110 days before the General Assembly;*
*Also look for the UU Governance Lab on Facebook to connect with Donald directly.
Also, a comment from another member who was participating on Discuss:
Some of us are connecting on Slack, mainly to remain in contact with others interested in specific amendments or the amendment process in general at GA 2024.
Before I get any further, I would like to thank you, LeRae for your tremendous work in articulating the need to amend Article 2 to include Reason as a UU Value. You understood the process far better than I did, and Iâm glad you ran with it! I felt that same disappointment to learn that your amendment was not among those to be voted upon. I hope that it will get a fair shake next year!
And in that vein, I would love to continue communications on this important topic! However, I am not a Facebooker and am not at all social-media savvy, and so I usually only communicate by email (creating that Google Doc early on in this process was a stretch for me!). If anyone else has an idea on how to keep the topic alive on another platform, please keep me in the loop! I can be reached at chrisdenario@gmail.com or if you want to continue to use the Google Doc to at least communicate temporarily until we find a platform that will carry us through to GA 2024, we can still login to this:
Warm regards to all those who chimed in on the Reason threads!
Christine
In our group, because it is public and open, you should at least be able to see the â15 congregations amendmentsâ post and comments beneath it even if you are not on Facebook (just be careful not to look like you are trying to comment, or Facebook will try to make you log in).
If people sort of help each other coordinate, mention what their congregations are and things like that, this can be a supplemental method. I also understood that âDiscussâ is going to still be open for people to use, so I expect it just means that these GA-specific sections are getting locked for comment and they are starting new ones, but I am sure someone official will announce all that.
Hereâs an idea, although Iâm just experimenting with the free version of this app. Itâs called Slack, and itâs supposed to be a collaborative workspace app. Iâve created a group called Article 2 Amendment Work Group in Slack, but I donât know if the link will work or not. Try it, and see if you can join:
UU Article 2 Amendment Work Group
I think I have a free 90-day trial on thisâŚthat should be enough to get anyone who wants to work on amendments to be considered at GA 2024 to at least get started until we find a more permanent way to communicate with one another.
Itâs worth a shot, right?
Christine
1 Like
May I share that information about Slack in the lay-led Blue Boat Passengers discussion group? As noted above, this group will also be suspended (or set to âread-onlyâ) but not for a couple more weeks.
I would like to see us set up a Slack, groups.io group, or wordpress.com site
Perfect, yes! and more characters; page wants 20
We can continue to use the free version; they do limit the number of old posts that can be seen, but lots of national groups continue to use the free version. (It used to be that the free version had access to 10,000 posts, but now the limits are based on the age of the posts, which either is because so many groups use it that they were struggling to cover cost of server time or is just more-deliberate up-selling).
Yes, Kerry, please do!
1 Like
Hi Sally,
I just created the Slack site as a last ditch effort to make sure this effort does not die due to the closing of this message board. If you or anyone else on this thread is sufficiently techno-savvy to create a groups.io or wordpress.com site and knows that this would be better suited to the work of this group going forward in the coming year, by all means, please set that up and share the connection so we can stay in touch!
Thanks to all who remain dedicated to a full and complete representation of UU Values!
Christine
I think Slack is fine; it was one of my choices and I use it for a lot of groups. Iâll share the invitation link with my list of delegates assembled over the years of âoff-site-delegatehooodâ, if that is O.K. with you.
For anyone who tries to join Slack but fails, this is being run by @cdenario and someone else, but will also try to post instructions later in the Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, cited above, for how to join if you have problems.