THE EDITOR, Sir:
ALEXANDER POPE'S famous phrase, "a little knowledge is dangerous", is interpreted to mean that a person who is not sufficiently knowledgeable lives in imminent danger of making unwise choices, making dull-witted pronouncements, or ill-advising others, the consequence(s) of which might range from mild to severe. Presumably, being sufficiently knowledgeable keeps one out of the danger zone.
However, Thomas Henry Huxley, after examining Pope's phrase, wisely asked: "If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much knowledge as to be out of danger?" Of course, this question for which there exists only one possible, and elementarily obvious, answer - No such man! So, in essence, Huxley was not intending to ask a question. Rather, he was making a strong and complete statement: no person is so knowledgeable as to be out of danger. After reading Dawn Ritch's column in the Sunday Gleaner of March 7, 2004, one is bound to agree with contemporary philosophers, that Huxley's pronouncement is most accurate. Judging from the article, one might be tempted to applaud Ritch's seemingly vast knowledge base, and exclude her from the imminent danger zone. She cites historical facts (most of which seems irrelevant to her topic), highlights global current happenings (some, for no clear discernible purpose), and points out what geneticists are forecasting for the future (in really vague terms, and citing no reference). All this, I assume, to convince readers that she is a walking knowledge bank. Yet, her evident lack of knowledge pertaining to how knowledge should be used to construct meaning, coupled with the fact that she obviously does not know that it's irresponsible to make totalising statements, or give definitive explanation, while ignoring context, leads one to conclude that she remains confined to the danger zone of ignorance. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two obvious examples:
First, in the article Ritch claims, "A republic in the hands of a black politician is a passport to hell." But, in the said article she writes, "...there ought not be this national obsession with how people look..." Undoubtedly, she is ignorant of the clear fact that she has contradicted herself. Further, Ritch obviously does not know for herself, even though she wants others to know, that skin colour has absolutely nothing to do with a person's character.
NO FIXED TRUTH
Second, Ritch tells us, "The best thing for us is the Westminster model with a Prime Minister and a Governor-General representing the Queen." Here, again, Ritch is declaring that she is truly ignorant of a primary philosophical tenet that should underpin reasoning across every discipline, the fact that in this world there is no fixed truth. Also, she seems to not know that in her attempts to make a convincing case, telling us what's best for us, she has a duty to detail WHY it's best. Unless, of course, she is a dictator. By the way, who appointed Ritch authority on what's best for us?
To conclude, Ritch's article, in my view, is less about making sense, and more about convincing herself and others that she belongs to the socially elite club that existed in colonial days. I would love to be the bearer of bad news, telling Ritch that club colonial elite is an anachronism. However, if, like Foucault, we view colonialism and post-colonialism, as oppositional attitudes, and not distinct chronological time periods, the club might still exist.
Given this likelihood, I would suggest that Ritch forward a copy of her article (attach to a new application) to Her Majesty, via the GG. Since factors like colour and race, in Ritch's view, are no longer prerequisites for gaining membership, she might stand a more than slim chance.
I am, etc.,
KORNEL BROWN
kabcu222@aol.com
East Orange
New Jersey
Via Go-Jamaica
