CR Mittal wrote:
> This is a P.S. to the two observations, one by Owen Barfield and the
> other by Eliot himself.
> that absurdity is perpetrated ALL the time by many in power in academia.
This is simply not true -- Peter has made it up out of whole cloth, as
is revealed by the intellectual limpness of the retreat to a vague and
unspecifiable "many." Since Peter has no evidence for the claim, I see
no reason to go beyond a simple flat rejection of it.
And of course it has utterly no relevance (even if it were true) to the
discussion on this list.
Peter's mode of discourse reminds me of two other groups who specialize
(quite sincerely though ignorantly) in disrupting rational conversation:
creationists in the realm of science education, conspiracy theorists in
the realm of left politics. In fact Peter's mode of reasoning is
amazingly similar to those who argue that 9/11 was a plot of the Bush
administration. Since the Bush administration's _reaction_ to 9/11 was
to declare war on the human species, one can establish the criminality
of the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq using material from the front
pages of the NYT, and the nonsense spewed by the conspiracists merely
interferes with organizing against the war. Similarly, Peter's creation
of academics conspiring to corrupt the young mind simply creates chaos
in the discussion of the scope and limits (and there are _real_ limits)
in the construal of authoriao meaning.