ERIN:
>I just wanted to say I love watching the dynamics between you two.
>Platt you are really funny and Matt I find your comments really
>insightful and makes we want to buy some Rorty books.
What, I'm not funny? ;-)
ERIN:
>Another book I am finding worthy of reading is Creating from the
>Spirit by Dan Wakefield. :
>
>"Not only are we all created, we all create. We create our lives and
>then create stories to explain them, make art and music and drama to
>make sense of our experience and our world. In our creating, we ask
>questions, pose answers and celebrate our humanity. "
>
>"If we realize that we create our very reality, then we have a new
>relationship to it, and we can take more control of our lives. We can
>alter them and refine them as we would a work of art, like adding more
>color to a painting, or adding more characters to a story, or changing
>the end, or perhaps the setting, singing a song in a new key, doing a
>dance with a different rhythm."
This I love. It is beautiful and and excellent portrayal of the
post-Nietzschean/pragmatist tradition. The analogy of a post-Philosophical
culture with that of a painting is perfect. The thing I like the best is
that in the painting that is culture, we don't just discard the painting.
We work with what we have, because that is all we have. And we try new things.
>MATT: As for tough love, that does pose any interesting quandry. Rorty is,
>however,
>>a bit of a utilitarian and any act of cruelty that can be recontextualized
>>convincingly enough to be considered an act of kindness probably evades the
>>possible conflict of interests.
>
>ERIN: If you are asking do bad means justify good ends i would think
>probably not, why not look for good means to a good end.
>But I think Matt is right about conflict of interests--what
>is good for one level isn't good for another level.
>So I think you are suggesting is it okay to use a low level
>mean to justify a high level end? Interesting question.
>Maybe only if a high level mean is not possible?
The thing about a convincing recontextualization is that we wouldn't be
able to tell if we really were doing bad means to justify good ends. There
is no ahistorical "bad means" to compare to. So if we are convinced, we
should follow through. If not everyone is convinced (like in the case of
Jews in Germany in the 30's) than it is our duty to continue to
recontextualize. All we have is a continual effort at recontextualization
to minimize cruelty.
Thank you for the added voice to the conversation, Erin.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:33 BST