Re: MD No to absolutism

From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 13:42:53 GMT

  • Next message: Mari: "Re: MD No to absolutism"

    Matt wrote:
    > As an additional thought on Kevin's coming to the Rortyan affirmation of
    > the public/private split (which is as old as classical liberalism),
    > particularly for those who may not know what he's refering to, the
    > public/private split affirms that we need to have enough relevent beliefs
    > in common to be able to interact socially and to be able to have public
    > discourse (such as discussing good public policy). The point of the
    split,
    > and of why Kevin said, "Yet another argument for the keeping metaphysics
    > out of the public policy making and keeping it in the realm of private
    > self-actualization," is that all we need to make progress politically are
    > shared beliefs. It doesn't matter how we got to those beliefs, just that
    > we have them. So that's why Christians, atheistic metaphysicians,
    > Buddhists, and ironists can come together and agree that we should have a
    > "Clean Air Act" or "Civil Right Act." They all agree that those things
    are
    > good and it doesn't matter whether they got the sentiment from God,
    Reason,
    > meditation, or reading some good books. That's the essence of why Rorty
    > maintains that we need the public/private split. To save our freedom to
    > believe in God, Reason, the Nothingness, and good books while being able
    to
    > spend time haggling about good policy, rather then spending time on the
    > Senate floor arguing about philosophy or religion. Its a pratical split
    > meant to faciliate our desire for personal freedom and our desire to
    > alleviate the cruelty done to others.

    Matt, Does this mean that Person A, an Atheist, and Person B a Buddhist, and
    Person C a Christian all have a ".....desire for personal freedom and our
    desire to
    > alleviate the cruelty done to others." so we leave our "private" beliefs
    at the door in order to "publicly" agree on an "Act" which enables us to
    live in peace and practice our private philosophies and religious beliefs as
    we wish? If so isn't that the so called "American Way"? Ironically it's
    what the other guys hate about us.
    i think at some point those so called "public/private split" falls apart.
    Compromises and concessions clash when ego fed ideologies take on their own
    social ego (collective/accumulative). Everything we do is "out there" almost
    instantly for the world to see. judge and plot against. ( while they
    formulate plans to annihilate us we're discussing the meaning of
    absolute...it's almost poetic )
    If we do not like what is happening now we should have handled our affairs
    differently years ago. Now it may be too late. One solution that works
    always is to kill the opposition. "Kill the filthy bastids!!" We know there
    are many who believe: " if we can't have it our way, no one gets to have it
    their way".
    Sad but true!
    i imagine that there is a way to avoid the darkest scenario. i thought that
    this discussion group might be a good place to find others with whom to
    formulate a plan while the air is still safe. My experience has fallen short
    of my expectation so far. That said i do not think of my time spent here as
    a waste of time. In fact quite the opposite. i am seeing and hearling things
    that are indeed improving my so called "plan", as well as effecting my art
    and for that i am grateful!

    Keep up the good work MoQers while the power is still on and the air and
    water is still safe.

    Mari

    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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 09 2003 - 13:47:36 GMT