What a peculiar turn of phrase this is. To my mind, it implies that that which is open to everybody most be barred access to that which is mature, for that which is mature is not suitable for everybody. Yet, supposing that we have an option not to be prejudiced, (no mean feat indeed, if our psychologists don't lie entirely,) the latter portion of this prescription would lead us to presume that the widest possible and most inclusive audience cannot be rightfully expected to tolerate prejudicial claims, as though all prejudicial claims were in themselves exclusive or narrow, or as though exclusivity and narrowness could not be considered an improvement upon inclusivity and openness. (Again, the psychologists would argue that, in fact, the narrow path accords itself more closely with moral imperative than does the open road.) The most optimistic interpretation for this would be to suggest that Universal Claims, the likes of which ought to be witnessed by a Universal Audience, can never be prejudicial, implying that they must be “informed by” some epistemological authority. Yet the underside of this cozy fantasy implies that no claims deemed to be prejudicial BY an authority can possibly hold Universal Value. Yet would this not suggest a sociology wherein the all-inclusive Public is in fact comprised of various groups, each of whom holds a different set of prejudices about what is prejudicial? In such a case, the Authority would be the LEAST prejudicial members of such a Public, representing the interests of various groups. Yet how, then, can ANY submission be “unprejudiced”??
:-]
[({L.J.)}]