From: Walter Miles <walter at nova.org>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:23:26 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] Does principle matter? (was Re: Friday will prob...)
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Well, the Internet hates me, I probably won't be able to send this, but:

Tip of the hat to Elspeth, Barry, Sam Pierce but especially to Michael
Nelson for some powerful and righteous stuff!

*Keith*:  I want you to NOT LEAVE the club.  I may grok your motivation,
and if you do leave, I will be disappointed, but not in you.  Your
situation would be very difficult for me; I don't know what I would do.

Most WSFAns would prefer to talk about cool SF ideas, and *I'd much* rather
talk about farting, but I'll discuss the foundations of our lives instead.

PRINCIPLE
=========
Folks have different guiding principles.  Sometimes our principles make
our path less smooth; often they are difficult to mediate; a few really
suck ("Down with our inferiors!").  A person without any is a problem.
You should hang with somebody else.

Our principles (whatever they may be) are as important as anything in our
lives.  We should recognize that about *others* too, decide whether we
can live with their principles, and, if so, allow them the space to live
their principled lives.

An attack on our principles ("Yours are false or meaningless," "You have
violated yours, or have none," etc.) can be terribly painful.  Principle
can be both our armor /and/ the chink therein.  This kind of attack can
turn your life upside down, can cripple relationships with friends and
associates.  /Even/ an unjustified fear that the attack will be credible
or effective can be devastating.  I suppose we should be stronger than
that, but how many are?

My observation is that Keith values truth-seeking (he may not always find
it---I have attacked him /brutally/ in the past---but he's lookin' for it).
Higher for him, IMO, is the combined principle that truth-telling and a
reputation for truthfulness are important.  That ain't a bad guiding
principle.  It don't always make life easy though.  Because it has
a mutual component (reputation), and because it is so tied up with the
complexities of communication (which is probably as much about lies as
anything else), it's easier to effectively attack than many principles.

This principle (truth and good name) explains pretty much all that Keith
has done or said in this dispute, even things that I think are kinda dumb
For example, I wish he would accept that the wheels of ethical behavior
grind slow, and give it some time (I may explain how what he /has/ done is
consistent with and perhaps even required by a disciplined application of
his principle, in another message).  Too me, all Keith's stuff is better
explained as adherence to this principle than as grandstanding, "courting
martyrdom," "insulting" WSFA, etc., etc.  So far, his actions and words,
/even the ones that I disagree with/, are acceptable to me because I
think they are in accordance with his (good) principles, and *because*
*someday I might want him (or you) to tolerate my attempt to live my*
*life according to my ethical principles, even in difficult circumstances*.
And that is...

WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT
======================
A public, unprovoked, unjustified attack on a WSFAn's reputation (maybe
more, if my ideas above are correct) took place.  No contrition was shown,
in fact the "apology" added provocation.  It could happen again, to
someone else.  Maybe something worse could happen.

Associated with this incident, there is malice, cruelty, intolerance, and
from some others perhaps indifference and cowardice.  I may discuss those
aspects separately.

Keith had a strong reaction (maybe stronger than most others would have
had), but that's *OKAY*.  He was angry, but he didn't respond with
viciousness, lies, or violence.  We have to be free to choose our own
highest values, and to respond to strange and hurtful things in different
ways.  It's not weird and unnatural for Keith to demand the public repair
of his good name; it's actually pretty freaky for us to not care more.
IMHO, this goes way beyond any of these events.

On 10/18/05, Candy Madigan wrote:
CM> I'm going to point something out here.  Keith said he wouldn't come
CM> back to  the Gilliland's *before* Lee kicked him out.  Sorta like "I

IIRC, She didn't threaten to kick him out (she did try to kick out Ted
and myself).  But it is not primarily about being kicked out, or about
quitting, or about moving the meeting.  It's about a substantial wrong
done with impunity.  And about fixing that, and discouraging similar
wrongs in the future.

CM> quit!", "No you  don't!  You're fired."  Being banned from the
CM> Gillilands really *was* his  own fault.  Had he not "quit" I doubt he

No.  NOT his own fault.  Not EVEN.  You're looking at all the little
things and not putting them together the most intelligible way either.

WHAT IF I AM WRONG?
===================
I welcome any demonstration that my understanding of principle or its
importance is faulty, and *especially* that accusations of lying are not
gravely important, since I will then, with an /airy/ sense of abandon,
feel free to fling accusations of bad faith /left/ and /right/, on this
list or off (I've already got some ideas!), and, of course, to lie myself
in ways that I hope will be found both creative and---charming!

(Everything I say is out of date anyway, I need to look at the roof some
more, and getting the Playmobil Gorilla (Set No. 3039) is the most
important thing in my life, anyhow).

Walter