Hope you had a lovely dinner. And, by the time you read this, a big cup of morning coffee.
During the course of the war, I had been noticing brees's repeated references to PMPs and, by contrast, OPs. I noticed his apparent approval of PMPs and apparent "distaste" for OPs. That approval and disapproval was apparent in his descriptions of the categories as well as in yours and JLA's. The PMPs are the good guys and the OP's are the bad guys.
My read on brees's meaning was that those who subscribed to the notion of absolute values, either by faith or traditional values, were PMPs and those who had different ideas were OPs. I think you pretty much confirmed my read: "the PMs are those who acknowledge an objective moral order to which they should conform." The reason I was trying to get a clarification of the scope of the PMP as opposed to the OP was to try to sort out who among us on the BR fit into which category
The war was not between the PMPs and the OPs but the substance of the war was much about OPism, specifically X's. Although the substance was about OPism, the combatants weren't necessarily split along those lines. There were some PMPs on each "side" although the same is not the case for OPs, who were only on one side, best that I can assess who's who. There were also both PMPs and OPs who were not combatants but were rather either on the sidelines or directing traffic.
As I observed this war going on, I was struck by the nastiness that appeared. I was also struck by the observation that the preponderance of the nastiness, by a considerable margin, was coming from posters who fit into the PMP category. How could this be if the PMPs were so good for society, so committed to decency? Don't these moral values and principles get translated into everyday actions? Do PMPs not practice their beliefs? My, my. Can it be that there's no correlation between absolute values and good citizenship?
Since I'm one of the OPs--perhaps in that subset that you would call sweet, sympathetic, and meaning no harm--but still an OP, I have a little different perspective on your essay on the end of civilization as we know it. I won't argue with your observations. But I will argue that the fundamental distinction between those who are part of the problem and those who are part of the solution is not OPs and PMPs, respectively, not whether their values are relativist or absolute, but whether they have values and and the character to regularly act on those values in their everyday activities.
Karen |
