8th Annual Fall Conference – The Dialogue of Cultures – Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture

Incommensurable Beliefs Facilitate Cultural Dialogue Conflict

By

Richard Poirier

Copyright, Richard Poirier, November 2007

November 27, 2007

This paper considers the underlining causes of conflict in cultural dialogue and whether there are ways
to negotiate, reconcile or transcend these impediments to meaningful conflict resolution. I will be using
the word “culture,” in the traditional broad sense as defined by Kluckhohn and Kelby in “The Concepts
of Culture” The Science of Man in World Crisis, Columbia University Press, 1945 as “the aggregation
of historically created designs for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational and non-rational,
which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behavior of men.” 1 Or to state it more simply as
it is in “Human” by the Smithsonian Institution, 2004, “Culture includes what people believe, how they
behave, how they shape their environment, and what they understand about the world.” 2 Now you will
notice that neither of these definitions limits the notion of culture to specific geographic areas. In this
paper, we will consider culture to mean any group of people who share a common unifying experience
in which they interpret the world from a shared perspective that guides their actions and serves to
reinforce their self-identity and relationships with others.

Conflict generally arises between cultures and within a culture when there is something at stake and
there are different points of view about what is at stake, what constitutes a valid claim or position and
the general reasonability of the participants involved. Although there are many levels of conflict, I will
limit my discussion to the most serious levels. I’ll begin with four examples of different kinds of cultural
conflict. Then I’ll explore the nature of beliefs, their manifestation into action and how experience,
reason, faith and tradition inform positions taken in cultural dialogue. I’ll argue that we can evaluate
beliefs by viewing their relationship to human motivation. My ultimate goal is to argue that vigorous
public debate is the best means to unmask illogical presuppositions, examine first principles, expose
disingenuous claims, and provide a pathway away from violent conflict and towards valid conclusions
that facilitate human understanding and foster respect for cultural differences through enlightened
dialogue that draws from faith and reason. We all have a vested interest in minimizing conflict and
violence, because its prevalence at a macro institutional level filters down into every level of society.
Let’s consider four examples:

In May 2006, an Iraqi Sunni tennis coach and two of his Shiite players were stopped in Baghdad, asked
to get out of their car and then shot to death because they were wearing shorts. A leaflet distributed in
the neighborhood said, “Wearing shorts by youth are prohibited because it violates the principals of
Islamic religion when showing forbidden parts of the body. Women should wear the veil.”

The following month, in Arleta, California, Alvaro Williamson, an Africa American, who lived in a
housing development didn’t like children playing basketball in the street or adults parking their cars
along the curb. He had argued over parking with Filimon Ramos, a Latino who lived across the street in

1
a neatly kept home. On a Sunday night while Ramos was about to enjoy a barbecue with his family,
Williamson, annoyed by an earlier parking dispute with Ramos, asked his 17 year old son to get him a
loaded handgun so he could shoot Ramos. His son obliged. Williamson shot Ramos to death in Ramos’
driveway. Neighbors said Williamson abused alcohol and didn’t like Latinos. Williamson and his son
were charged with murder.

Five weeks ago, Timothy McGhee, 34, a leader of the Toonerville gang in Atwater Village in Los
Angeles County was convicted of three murders and four attempts in four different shootings over a
four-year period. Among those murdered was a 16 year-old rival gang member vying for control of a
lucrative drug trade and a 26 year-old girlfriend of another rival gang member who was also a mother of
three. Among those attempted to be murdered were two LAPD officers. McGhee, however, was no
ordinary gang member killing to protect his market share, he “is believed to have killed another person
in 2000, simply because he thought Atwater Village wasn’t big enough for two people with the same
nickname,‘Guerro’–‘Light-skinned in Spanish’."3 He also no doubt felt good about and justified his acts
to himself, as he would write rap lyrics bragging about his murders and intimidation of others in his
personal notebook. It was used against him as evidence at his trial. The Deputy District Attorney is
asking for the death sentence.

Four weeks ago, in Sacramento, California 24-year-old Matthew Q. Rosatelli entered a Rite Aid
drugstore to get his medication prescription filled. Apparently there was some administrative reason why
his prescription could not be filled, such as his doctor not having yet called in the prescription. The
details are not clear, nor how many days this may have happened to him. On this particular night,
Rosatelli became outraged, went behind the counter and put a knife to the neck of a 25-year old female
pharmacy assistant who had been helping him. A 63-year-old pharmacist attempted to intervene and
sustained a minor head injury. Customers panicked, some screamed, others ran out of the store.

According to Sacramento Police Chief Albert Najera, four police officers arrived at the scene 3 minuets
after receiving the 911 call that a robbery was in progress with an armed man. Najera said, “They went
charging in, went right to the back and took this guy in.” What actually happened was one of the four
officers, a 28-year-old with just four years on the force, was training a younger officer. Within 50
seconds of entering the store, the 28-year-old officer drew his .40-caliber handgun and fired one shot at
Rosatelli’s face. Rosatelli fell to the ground, was administered first aid, taken to UC Davis Medical
Center and is expected to survive.

Rosatelli’s father said his son’s actions were “hard to comprehend” and completely out of character. He
had never hurt anybody and had never been arrested. His son has battled depression and is taking
medication, but “loves life in general and had recently expressed interest in enrolling in college to study
applied physics.” The officer has been praised as a hero by many and criticized for not trying to
negotiate with Rosatelli before shooting him by some. What is insightful is the tenor of comments on the
original news story by local police and their supporters which were later published in the Sacramento
Bee newspaper. The following ten comments express the kind of beliefs which prominent sociologists
and civil rights attorney Connie Rice (second cousin to Condoleezza Rice) and Ramona Ripston,
Executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, says are associated with “a police culture.”

1. “Thatta Boy. Good job in taking care of the situation. Immediate results are always the best.”
2. “Great work. This is how it should be done. It would seem though that the shooting officer could
use a bigger gun . . . Great shot though!”
3. “Yeeeeeah!!!! I love it!!! Great Freaking Job!”

2
 4. Good job taking swift action, instead of hours of ‘negotiations’!”
5. “Lead therapy works again! This is outstanding police work!!”
6. “Their only mistake . . . was to give the creep first aid!”
7. “Good job!! Too bad the suspect lived. He will be out again soon to do the same thing.”
8. “Should have fired two shots. Think of all the pharmacy supplies we could have saved, not to
mention the cost of the upcoming trial and incarceration.”
9. “Great job by the police, he should have taken the creep out permanently.”
10. “Right On!!! I didn’t read all of these comments, but the ones I did, really show the feeling from
the community on how extremely bad people need to be dealt with. More bullets, please.”

These four examples demonstrate cultural conflict based on a religious cultural view, a racial cultural
view, a gang member cultural view and a police cultural view. All involved end-of-life issues and
appealed to violence to resolve conflicting beliefs. But what exactly are beliefs, as distinguished from
opinion or knowledge? In modern philosophy since the Renaissance, knowledge has been a primary
field of investigation. Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant were all first and foremost epistemologists.
Earlier still in the 4th century BC, Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus was a serious attempt to develop a
definition of the concept of knowledge, in which Socrates asks, ”Is not learning growing wiser about
that which you learn? And by wisdom the wise are wise? And is that different in any way from
knowledge?” to which Socrates then says, “Herein lies the difficulty which I can never solve to my
satisfaction – What is knowledge?”4 In the twenty-first century, public opinion polls have become so
pervasive that nearly everyone has an idea of what constitutes opinion even though their opinion may
change daily based upon what the mass media selects as the top story of the day.

That brings us back to beliefs which philosophers have given less attention to. It is thought of as “a more
or less unproblematic inner state, accessible to introspection. Charles S. Peirce, [1839-1914,] took the
view that it is an unobstructed habit of action which, like health, comes to our notice only when we have
lost it”.5 However, when we compare beliefs to knowledge and opinion, we could say that we are
generally certain about our knowledge, although science demonstrates that we need to allow for
revisions based on newly discovered facts, and the very nature of opinion seem to acknowledge that we
allow for the fact that our opinion is only one of many. We also have no difficulty changing our opinion
when the basis for which we formed an opinion changes. Examples abound such as our current opinion
of a former romantic interest or of politicians who fail to keep their promises. But beliefs, although we
know they may contain elements of error and uncertainty, we take very seriously. We seldom change
them and use them as a basis for our most important decisions in life. Beliefs underlie our actions. Or
put another way, our actions are a manifestation of our beliefs.

To understand cultural-conflict-dialogue, we must consider the nature of beliefs. Beliefs are generally
born out of our experiences in life. We listen to the beliefs of others from an early age and adopt those
from others who we respect or believe have greater wisdom than ourselves. Over time we test beliefs
against reality and modify those that clearly fail the test of experience. But our perspective often colors
our view of empirical feedback, so we often retain beliefs we should discard based on reason. Family
influences, peer-pressure, propaganda, brainwashing or intense cultural indoctrination can present
obstacles in knowing what to believe or who to believe. People are exposed to so much advertising
hype, false political claims and disingenuous people with ulterior motives that it can become very
difficult to assess what constitutes valid beliefs and uncover their underlying presuppositions back to
first principles. Many people just find the whole process too daunting. They find it easier to accept the
path of least resistance by retaining the beliefs of their immediate culture, until they experience their
next epistemological crisis in which their knowledge or beliefs do not conform to reality.

3
When we attempt to gain an understanding of what people of different cultures believe, it may at first
appear that they are simply using incommensurable standards to justify their conclusions. However,
when we evaluate the human motives that support or justify allegiance to different beliefs we see many
similarities. Therefore, we can evaluate beliefs from the point of view of their relationship to human
motivation. The first and foremost motivation is human survival, followed by human flourishing. What
is necessary and proper for a human to survive and flourish is of course open to physiological,
psychological, philosophical and theological debate. But surely misunderstanding, fear, panic,
ignorance, domination and evil intentions can influence the soundness of the rationale that one may use
to pursue their survival and what flourishing means to them in their culture. To attempt to resolve
conflict one must understand the rationale embraced by the other party. Going back to my four examples
of cultural conflict, we can surmise the survival and flourishing rationale of the participants.

The Iraqi fundamentalist terrorist who murdered the Sunni tennis coach and two of his Shiite players for
wearing shorts was either acting in the belief that his religion condoned and encouraged such acts to
punish offenders of his religious beliefs and to serve as a warning that those who oppose the spread of
his version of the true religion would be similarly treated __ this is a warfare tactic that dates back to the
early Chinese dynasties __ or it is equally possible that the terrorist was merely using the cover of
religion to advance his political cause for territorial gain and personal power. In either case an
uncivilized means was used for an irrational or delusional end. The counter argument to his rationale is
that no religion can justify its validity as self-evident if it requires force to make people pretend that they
believe in its version of truth or god. If his goals were purely political, history has taught us that
theocracies or dictatorships ultimately crumble if their existence is based on unreasonable oppression
and lack of respect for human life. The value of engaging in debate on dysfunctional cultural beliefs is
the opportunity to provide counter arguments to their means or ends. Aside from the moral issues that
I’ll address later, these are a few examples:

The counter argument to Alvaro Williamson’s beliefs in justifying the murder of his Latino neighbor is
he failed to accomplish his original goal of preventing children from playing basketball on the street or
adults from parking along the curb. The only thing he accomplished was the release of temporary anger
directed at a person of a different race and the prospects of him and his son being locked up in different
maximum-security prison cells for the rest of their lives. Was the price he paid worth the spoils he
received? I doubt he will think so upon sober reflection over time.

The counter argument to the Toonerville gang leader Timothy McGhee’s beliefs is that his business and
leadership skills could have been put to better use than running an illegal drug operation that
necessitated, from his point of view, murdering business rivals. Once he got the taste of power acquired
from brutality and intimidation it was only a matter of time in which his empire would come crashing
down due to his risk-taking or excess. Perhaps he understood that and wrote the rap lyrics that
contributed to his downfall as a memorial to his self-perceived legacy. How quickly everyone will forget
him when more pressing issues demand their attention.

Although Matthew Rosatelli exercised perhaps the worst judgment in his life when he put a knife to the
neck of a Rite Aid pharmacy assistant, the 28-year-old police officer who shot him in the head within 50
seconds of entering the drug store, as well as the supportive comments from fellow police officers
demonstrate an institutional cultural belief that it’s their right and prerogative to shoot first and make
inquires later. The counter arguments to this and other claims would point out:

4
 1. That a police officer’s job requires judgment before acting.
2. Successful police negotiations contradict the view “If we wait, it’s too late.”
3. It is not the nature of evil that police are assigned to influence, but behavior and outcome.
4. Acts based on decisions may entail courage, but spontaneous decisions do not necessarily entail
competent judgment or courage.
5. Legal authorization does not mean do it; it means if necessary you can do it.
6. What’s necessary is always the least force required to achieve results.
7. The argument that police are forced to react based on the actions of others is another way of not
accepting any personal responsibility for one’s actions. All responses are choices and the actor is
always responsible for his actions.

Now in judging whether one can successfully negotiate, reconcile or transcend what are or appear to be
incommensurable beliefs to meaningful conflict resolution, one must assess the sincerity and
reasonableness of individuals they encounter. If people are merely mistaken in what constitutes their
general interest or if they sees the beliefs, values, success or freedom of others as a threat to their own
beliefs or self-esteem, which are the kind of people who often appeal to force to resolve conflicts, or if
they are victims of propaganda and rely upon faulty reason to justify their beliefs, then there is hope for
reconciliation and resolution through debate. The objective is to help them lower their defense
mechanisms by offering them something to consider in which you will respect their right to continue to
maintain their current beliefs if what you say doesn’t make sense to them. Your appeal is to help people
see what they may not have seen because they may not be aware of what has happened to them. People
can’t see what is hidden from their view if it is blocked as a result of their experiences. You appeal to
their desire for a view that is commensurate with their best interest and incorporate a sense of
reasonableness. Perhaps in this process you may even give them a new identity. Vigorous, intellectual,
respectful debate, whether on an individual level or in a public forum is the best means to unmask
illogical presuppositions, examine first principles, expose disingenuous claims and provide a pathway
away from violent conflict and towards valid conclusions that facilitate human understanding and
respect for cultural differences through enlightened dialogue that draws from faith and reason.

If on the other hand you are dealing with Islamic extremists who justify violence and murder as
legitimate means to their ends, appeasement or negotiation is generally not effective with those
oblivious to reason or respect for human life. As University Professor Emeritus Peter Berger, who
launched the Between Relativism and Fundamentalism Project, under the auspices of the Boston
University Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs, said, “Cannibals and noncannibals cannot
live together by agreeing to disagree.”6 It may be possible to publicly ridicule such people into personal
reflection if they feel that their beliefs are under attack from the world-at-large and the tradition that
informed their position was or is now becoming unsustainable in light of aggressive intellectual
challenges. But, if they are unwilling to be reasonable in the face of reason, then the virtue of self-
defense demands restraining the actions of murderous fanatics by all reasonable means necessary.

The arguments against what I propose essentially falls into two categories. First, it is claimed that
Westerners cannot understand the thinking, mind-set or beliefs of Islamists, or more broadly, terrorists.
The claim is that indoctrination from early childhood, reinforced by peer-pressure while living in
communities governed by strict religious law makes their way of thinking beyond understanding and
influence by Westerners. All such efforts by Westerners will deepen their view that those who
misconstrue or challenge their beliefs are Satan and will fuel a violent reaction from 5% to 10% of the
1.2 billion followers of Islam. Thus, the argument goes that such efforts will play into the hands of
fundamentalists and terrorists to defend Allah by killing His detractors. (This view was expressed to me

5
by a Jewish female Moroccan political author, a Jewish male American former military intelligence
officer who is an expert on terrorists, a Jewish male Californian political operative and a popular
Christian female conservative political author and media personality. All of whom wish to remain
anonymous, as many people are reluctant to speak out publicly on this issue.)

The next argument is that the Koran, like many holy books of antiquity, has many obscure passages that
cannot be sufficiently understood and therefore require supplemental material in the form of Hadith (al-h
ad th) which provides details on the oral traditions of the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad to
guide Muslims in understanding and imitating the ways of life (or sunnah) based on the practices of
Muhammad and his companions, c., AD 530. But even the Hadith requires interpretation, which is the
role of Shi’a and Sunni Imams and contemporary clerics. So it is argued that if terrorists and their
supporters have misunderstood the Islamic faith, only recognized Islamic cleric authorities can explain
the errors of their thinking and bring them back into the mainstream fold. Conversely, the argument for
why one cannot reason with those who harbor racial hatred, gang member mentality or police warrior
behavior is that their culture has made them incorrigible to reason. Emotions prevail that override logical
thinking. Their behavior is condoned and reinforced by their peers, so they don’t see any reason to
change their beliefs or behavior.

The reason that my proposal to engage in vigorous debate overcomes these two major objections is that
all human minds operate on the same fundamental process of comparing differences and similarities,
evaluating concepts and relationships that lead to an individual’s personal version of logical conclusions.
Although it is true that some people adopt ideas without filtering them through a test of reasonability,
they do so because of common motives that we can all understand. Thus, any concept or belief that one
person can conceive and believe, another person can also conceive and understand it, although not
necessarily believe that the concept is valid. Thus, through our common personhood, those with a
sincere desire to understand the thoughts of another can do so. With respect to the retaliatory reaction of
terrorists, to live in fear of speaking the truth or seeking to understand the truth, is to not live at all.
Diplomacy certainly has its place, but when politeness fails, bold action is needed. This includes the
willingness to pay the price for asserting what the whole history of the development of our intellect has
obliged us to assert. No form of intimidation can match the strength of applied human wisdom and the
common desire for peaceful human evolution.

We have witnessed that Islamic clerics have failed in their responsibility to denounce the violence of Al-
Qaeda. Even intellectual Islamic moderates such as Sheikh Gamal Al-Bana, who notwithstanding being
the younger brother of Sheikh Hassan Al-Bana, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and
notwithstanding that he has spoken out in support of liberal stances on issues such as separation of
religion and state, the status of women, democracy and not killing Muslims who have left the fold of
Islam, nevertheless he wrote an article praising 9/11 and blaming its cause on recent U.S. foreign policy
decisions.7 We know of course that recent U.S. policy decisions had nothing to do with the motives of
those who participated in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Many of its participants, including Al-Qaeda military
commander Mohammed Atta studied and were sympatric to Nazis philosophy. Also, the founders of the
Muslim Brotherhood collaborated with Adolf Hitler in the systematic killing of Jews living in the
Middle East during WWII. Therefore, reliance on even moderate Imams and clerics appear not to be a
viable alternative to vigorous public debate.

Pope Benedict XVI suggested in his 2006 Regensburg address that a reconciliation between faith and
reason – with reason’s emphasis on the empirically verifiable – would provide the conditions necessary
for a genuine dialogue of cultures. Is such a reconciliation possible? What beliefs would each side have

6
to be willing to amend to accommodate what appears to be incommensurable standards? Pope Benedict
XVI’s approach to reconciliation is he juxtaposes a Biblical understanding of God with a Greek
philosophical understanding of reason by illustrating that John’s Book of Genesis began with the
sentence “In the beginning was the logos" which "means both reason and word – a reason which is
creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason."8 The focus on reason underscores
Pope Benedict XVI's reference to the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus's dialogue during the
siege of Constantinople (between 1394 and 1402) with an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity
and Islam in which - aside from the topic of Mohammed's command to spread by the sword the faith he
preached, which the emperor characterizes as 'unreasonable' - the emperor said "God is not pleased by
blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature."9 Thus, it seems by Pope Benedict XVI's
definition of God's word logos that faith and reason are already reconciled conceptually. But the
problem at hand with the incommensurable views of Islamic radicals is that their views are based on an
unreasonable, contradictory definition of what could possibly constitute a God or faith and the rationale
they employ to spread and compel belief in their religion is contrary to a rational understanding of a
legitimate God's will or a real congregation of actual believers. So, Pope Benedict XVI's admirable quest
to reconcile faith with reason appears not to solve the problem of dealing with people who believe they
are already embracing faith and reason. It appears vigorous debate will succeed with some, but others
will remain obstinate, thus requiring different tactics.

In conclusion, I have been discussing different kinds of cultural thoughts, expressed through words in
dialogue, that are intended to affect behavior by presenting either a distorted view or an accurate view of
reality. In Josef Pieper’s essay on ”the abuse of language in its relation to the abuse of power,” he points
out that “The reality of the word in eminent ways makes existential interaction happen. And so, if the
word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted.”10 . . . “In the
very attempt to know reality, there already is present the aim of communication.” Pieper poses the
question to us, “Can a lie be taken as communication? I tend to deny it” he says. “A lie is the opposite of
communication. It means specifically to withhold the other’s share and portion of reality, to prevent his
participation in reality. And so: corruption of the relationship to reality, and corruption of
communication __ these evidently are the two possible forms in which the corruption of the word
manifests itself.”11 Where do we turn for guidance on truth and moral soundness?

If we could rely upon all men and women having a so-called ‘impartial spectator within the breast’ to
guide them in moral considerations as Adam Smith conceived, then we could refer all to look within to
answer questions on how we should treat one another. But where Adam Smith failed in his moral
concept of ‘sympathy’ and where Immanuel Kant failed in his moral concept of ‘categorical
imperatives’ to guide man in making moral decisions is that each failed to answer the question of why
should someone be impartial and not yield to deviant selfish motives when they are directly harmful to
others?

On the other hand, when we consider the dilemma brought to light in an exchange between Alasdair
MacIntyre and David Solomon on the difficulty of a rational consensus on grounding moral rules and
agreement on what constitutes the good, __ and when we consider MacIntyre’s argument that “in the
absence of some shared conception of the human good, any apparent agreement on the content or the
social setting of moral rules will be illusory.” 12 __ we can see the multitude of challenges before us, in
engaging in persuasive cultural dialogue to obtain rational consensus on end-of-life issues. These are the
questions that philosophy and theology need to address to have any chance of reforming the thinking of
the masterminds and their adherents behind the ugly face of terror. To simply argue using trite
expressions such as, ”just say no to violence” or to assert that violence is unacceptable from a moral

7
perspective will not be effective with those who have adopted a rationale that accepts violence as a
legitimate means to their ends.

Stronger, coherent, compelling arguments are necessary to change the beliefs of those who are
committed to appeal to violence to resolve conflict or attain their ends. Thus, much work is needed to
achieve a rational consensus on acceptable means when engaging in conflicting cultural beliefs. But the
difficulty of the task does not mean we should avoid engagement until we have the most perfect
arguments. We need to engage this problem now with the intellectual resources we currently have
available to us. Over time we can develop better arguments that answer some of the more complex
issues. But, this process all begins with utilizing persuasive, assertive dialogue to meet the dangerous
challenges of our time. The most effective results will be achieved if everyone throughout the world
participates in this project to understand one another and argues against the unnecessary use of violence.
The time is now; assert your best argument. Thank you for your thoughtful attention. #

END NOTES

1 Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Kelby, William. “The Concept of Culture.” Ed. Ralph Linton. The Science of
Man in World Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945. p. 97. Quoted from “In Defense of
Individuality,” an unpublished manuscript by Richard Poirier, Los Angeles: 2007.
2 Winston, Robert, and Wilson, Don E., Ed.“Human.”Smithsonian Institution. New York: DK

Publishing, Inc., 2004. p. 284.

3 Los Angeles Daily News, 10/26/07. p.3.

4 Plato. “Theaetetus.” The Dialogues of Plato. Trans. Jowett, Benjamin. Great Books of the Western

World. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1952. p. 514.

5 Quinton, Anthony. “Knowledge and Belief.” Ed. Paul Edwards. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New

York: Macmillan Publishing Co & The Free Press, 1967. p. 345.

6 Berger, Peter. “How Can Fundamentalists and Relativists Live Together in Peace?” Advancement:

Boston University’s Philanthropy Magazine, Boston: Boston University, Summer 2007. p. 12.
7 Dankowitz, A., and Feldner, Y. “Sheikh Gamal Al-Bana: Social and Religious Moderation Vs.

Political Extremism.” Inquiry & Analysis Series – No 334. The Middle East Media Research Institute.
MEMRI.org.
8 Schall, James V. “The Regensburg Lecture.” South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2007. #17 p. 135.

9 Ibid. “The Regensburg Lecture.”#14 p. 134.

10 Pieper, Josef, “Abuse of Language __ Abuse of Power,” Munich / San Francisco: 1974 / 1992. p. 15.

11 Ibid. “Abuse of Language __ Abuse of Power.” p. 16.

12 Solomon, David, W “Comment on MacIntyre” MacIntyre, Alasdair. The Privatization of Good, An

Inaugural Lecture in: The Review of Politics, University of Notre Dame, Summer 1990, p 369