Interview answers...

[altivo]

Answers to interview questions from zenicurean, original meme can be found here.


1. You've taught classes, so you have a good idea about how to do that. What would you say are the three greatest virtues for a teacher?

Patience, patience, and... patience. Seriously. But I say that because it's a virtue I always have to work on. Students can learn anything, but they don't all catch on at the same rate and some take quite a while before the light goes on. Actually, let's say Patience, Humility, and Perception. No matter how expert you may be, you won't know everything. And, you need Perception to see both good ideas when your students have them (they will) and the reasons for misunderstanding or bad ideas, which you will also encounter.

2. We're probably miles away from each other on the political spectrum. Nonetheless, I have a great deal of respect for the various political stances you've expressed, even when they differ from mine. How did your views develop? Do you find any redeeming value in the more conservative thinkers of our times?

Life experience is a significant factor in anyone's development, of course. The first influences are family, either blood relations or proxies; second are teachers and writers; third are peers. Young humans are notoriously conservative until they've had a chance to see how the world really works. As C. S. Lewis put it in The Screwtape Letters, they are convinced that the only proper sort of fish knife is the sort that was used in their father's household. I had the fortune to be born into a family that was neither wealthy nor dirt poor, neither ultra-conservative nor liberal, both literate and practical. I never had to rebel against my upbringing because it always allowed me to have my own ideas and values, though sometimes it limited their expression. My social liberalism was shaped by parents and teachers who mostly believed in personal freedoms, and reinforced by the experience of coming of age during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, with the constant shadow of the incredibly stupid and pointless Vietnam War and Richard Nixon's arrogant disregard for human rights and public opinion. Combined with the simultaneous blossoming of the gay rights movement and my own self recognition, I became a relentless believer in and crusader for the rights of individuals to choose their own paths and be different from the majority if they so felt inclined (as long as they did not harm others in that.)

Modern conservatism has two elements, as you are no doubt aware. One is a social conservatism that seeks to prevent any change or deviation in values, acceptance, or behavior, and often seems to look backward toward the 19th or even 18th century for its exemplars. The other is a fiscal and political conservatism that seems to me to have at its center an oxymoron. While seeking to limit the powers of governmental authority, it also seeks to make governmental authority absolute and fascist in nature, binding that authority to the traditional capitalist means of accumulating individual or corporate wealth. As other nations are offended by the affluence and arrogance of the United States, so I am offended by the affluence and arrogance of wealthy conservatives within the US. Nowhere in the world has Marie Antoinette's famous line, "Let them eat cake," been given flesh more often in the last century. The reasons for this are not as complex as you might think. I believe they stem from the same callous ignorance that inspired the original speaker, who had no understanding of the issues involved. So with American conservatives, who are so short-sighted and view the world through such a narrow and fortified window that they have no idea whatsoever of the consequence of their attitudes. And... callously... they don't care.

If I find any redeeming value at all in conservative thinkers of the present day, it is very limited. Once in a great while, though, they seem to have a flash of brilliance in which they actually see the hypocrisy of their own attitudes and make a sound decision that is in accord with their historical principles. An example of that is the US Supreme Court decision that struck down all state sodomy laws as unconstitutional violation of individual rights. An example of a failure in the same vein is the Microsoft anti-trust decision, which amazingly and against all odds went in the right direction and then was completely destroyed by settlement bargaining and turned into a hollow victory for all concerned except the slimy lawyers who made millions from it.

3. Sum up your current life philosophy in two paragraphs? I know, terribly broad, but that's the challenge.

"An it harm none, do as thou wilt." This classic statement of ethical and religious law as worded by Wiccan pagans is valid and sound, provided we take the first clause seriously. None of us live in a vacuum or on a desert island exclusively. Our actions have consequences not only for ourselves but for everyone and everything that exists on the earth and probably beyond. We cannot take the short view and seek only the immediate advantage, the improved bottom line for the current reporting period. And, tellingly important but often forgotten, "harm none" includes the possibility of harming ourselves.

As I've said in the past, I take the concept of karma as I understand it very seriously. The implications for others of our actions and decisions reflect on us permanently and will eventually bite us in the butt, with sharp teeth. To put it colloquially, "What goes around comes around." I have been immensely entertained lately watching the parade of political and social conservatives who have been revealed to have feet of clay and skulls of solid rock by their own stupid actions. Of course this happens to liberals too, but it doesn't have the same impact because the liberal operates from the assumption that he is fallible, while the conservative seems to believe that his views are absolutely not to be questioned.

4. Just to be clichéd and unimaginative again... pick a fictional character you identify with the most, from literary sources, TV, radio or any other medium of your choice. Who/what and why?

Oh, there are so many I could choose here. Let's go with Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (the book, not the obnoxious films that missed the point of the story) and choose the obscure wizard Radagast. Of similar rank and origin to the two more familiar istari, Saruman and Gandalf, Radagast appears to have focused his study and wisdom on birds, learning their speech and society. Saruman sneered at him as ineffectual, Gandalf hinted that there was more to him than met the eye. And that is all that we hear about him. Yet birds play a major role in the events of Tolkien's epic. What was Radagast's silent influence? Did he teach the eagles? Did he advise the ravens? Was he silently gathering information and passing it to Gandalf, using birds as eyes, ears, and messengers? I believe he was. Likewise, I believe I make a long term contribution by example and small influences day to day, and need not seek fame, fortune, nor notoriety in my own behalf.

5. Horses are a great interest of yours. What's the single best quality of the horse?

Here we come full circle back to the first question. ;D

Horses have personalities and vary just as humans do. But a good horse, in my opinion, has those same three virtues that I assigned to a good teacher: Patience, Humility, and Perception. Horses demonstrate an amazing willingness and ability to cooperate without passing judgement, and yet to tell us in no uncertain terms when we choose a stupid path. The horse is gentle, but has a spine of steel when he must.

Besides, they are just plain beautiful in the classical sense.

Good questions, you made me think in order to articulate my answers. I hope they suffice.

Comments

[ducktapeddonkey.livejournal.com]

Definitely, a most interesting read.

A way with words I wouldn't even attempt at this hour on a Sunday morning. :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Thank you, kind sir. Words, of course, are my living, so I've had lots of practice. ;)

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful answers, Tivo. I love to see someone with a mind as sharp and as knowledgable as yours. I think most of your analysis on modern conservatism is very accurate, especially how you point out the hypocrisy in failing to adhere and be faithful to the actual principles that supposedly guide conservatives.

I thought it was interesting what character you chose from The Lord of the Rings :) Even though they had some flaws, I really loved the movies and I thought they captured the feeling of the book quite accurately. There were a few scenes where I could have smacked Peter Jackson, but overall, I think he did a fantastic job.

As to something else you said, "Of course this happens to liberals too, but it doesn't have the same impact because the liberal operates from the assumption that he is fallible, while the conservative seems to believe that his views are absolutely not to be questioned."

I disagree with this. Liberals can be just as stubborn and self-righteous about their views as conservatives can be. Conservatives believe that their views are absolute because they have outside authoritative sources (i.e. The Bible for example) which they believe give them Divine support for their ideas. Liberals on the other hand base their views primarily on personal feelings rather than on any established morality or creed and therefore, their views actually tend to be more subjective in a sense. Yes, some intelligent liberals like you and another friend of mine do realize that your views could be fallible and I would say liberals are better at this than conservatives in general, but many liberals blindly follow their own, often irrational desires and feelings, with just as much zealous fervor as anyone on the right.

Liberals are also just as great of hypocrites as conservatives, promoting "human rights" and equality and tolerance, yet many have no tolerance or respect for traditional values or many forms of religion, particularly Judeo-Christianity. Double-standards. That's why I hate both sides. Hypocrisy all around. But that's human nature. None of us are immune to it.

And as for that saying which I am familiar with, "And it harm none, do as thou wilt" that sounds good as a general rule of thumb, but their are some serious problems with it, in my opinion. How does one define "harm"? Physical harm? Hurting someone's feelings or huring someone mentally or emotionally? You can get into a very sticky situation with such a broad and generalized moral code. Sorry, my friend, I don't mean to argue you but when someone starts talking about these kinds of subjects, I have a hard time resisting the urge. And you were answering questions for another person! Then I just rudely jump in here and start blabbling stuff. Don't mind me. I'm just an idiot :p

*nuzzles you and offers a warm plushie hug*

[altivo.livejournal.com]

My serious problem with Peter Jackson's vision of LotR is that he thinks the book is a love story between Aragorn and Arwen, with lots of bloody battles to fill the time until Aragorn proves himself worthy of her. I feel quite confident that the Aragorn and Arwen story was a side issue rather than the main plot element. The evidence is clear enough: Tolkien put most of it in the Appendix. Jackson's attempt to make a warrior of Arwen by giving her Glorfindel's role was especially galling. He also spent far too much time elaborating on Saruman's role, way beyond what Tolkien gave us, without really making it clear that Saruman was challenging Sauron for his very own place as Dark Lord. And most importantly, he missed the main theme of the whole story for me, the sad and permanent end to three ages of wonder, beauty and mystery, which are to be replaced by the humdrum and commonplace, and forgotten by all men.

Individual liberals may indeed be stubborn and short-sighted, but I think it is far less common. My real point, though, was that liberals are more often true to their philosophy because their philosophy allows a lot of flexibility and wiggle room. The issue of fallibility is nowhere more obvious than on the subject of capital punishment, where the conservative just says "kill the bastard" and the liberal says "wait, we could be making a mistake." The liberal philosophy itself states that it may sometimes be wrong and chooses to err in ways that can later be compensated for, while conservatism goes for the absolutes, whether the actions will be reversible or not.

You are entirely correct about the definition of harm. I tried to point that out, too. It is an interesting coincidence that harm and karma are such similar words. It is very hard to quantify harm, and that is the sticky point of the witches' rule. It is meant to be a sticking point. That rule is not, as some would have it, an endorsement of licentiousness. It is rather a commandment that requires one to do as little as possible in order to avoid tipping any balances unintentionally.

"An it harm none, do as thou wilt," is in part a restatement of the golden rule, or of Jesus' own "Love your neighbor." It just goes a step farther in granting us the right to actually have desires and seek their fulfillment.

[A little pedantic aside here: The first word really is an rather than and. In this case, an is an archaic kind of subjunctive enclitic, and translates as "if" or "should".]

***mmmm, plushie hugs...yes, more... nuzzles too***

[corelog.livejournal.com]

Gotta say, that's an interesting take on LotR. That the main point is the ending of the ages of beauty, wonder, and mystery...I'd have to disagree with you, but neither do I think the main point is a love story or some such. I'd say the main thrust is to take a very real, very detailed and clear look at how evil operates, how good and hope can operate against that evil, and prove victorious in the end though at great cost. It sees both the positive aspects (the Ring and Sauron are destroyed) and the price paid for it (the Third Age ends, the elves leave for the Undying Lands, the wizards are gone, the Age of Men blossoms). Yet the price of good, great as it was, was preferable to slavery under evil.

And as a short aside on capital punishment, I'm just wondering where my own views fall on it. Personally, I think capital punishment is justified, but only in a very specific case--murder that was not for defense of self or another. Killing while defending is justified. Murder otherwise, from my perspective, just voided your own right to life. Though I may also make an exception for people who are mentally incurable or underage (like, under 10), as they may not have a proper view of what they've done. Where would you say my views fall on the liberal/conservative scale?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Even I will agree that capital punishment may be justifiable *IF* you can be absolutely certain of guilt. Unfortunately, in most cases you can't. For example, here in Illinois, a man was kept on death row for several years before DNA evidence was re-examined (it wasn't yet available and accepted in court at the time of his original trial) and proved he was innocent. The DA who convicted him still fought to have him killed, and so did others with emotional and political investment in the case.

It resulted ultimately in a re-examination of the death penalty as it was being imposed in Illinois. A large number of condemned prisoners' cases were re-examined in light of DNA technology and they were found innocent. All executions were put on hold, and a lot of condemned people were pardoned. To me this indicates that a huge percentage of executions that took place prior to the invention of DNA identification were also in the wrong. Innocent people slaughtered for things they didn't do. This is never acceptable.

And that's the difference between the liberal and the conservative view on this topic. The conservative thinks it is better to kill a few innocents than to let one guilty person escape. The liberal doesn't want anyone who might possibly be innocent to be deprived of their life unfairly.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

Radagast the Brown, hmm? Good choice--it's a non-obvious character. And a very, very good one.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Of course, you did know that I'm very very good. ;p