From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 22:41:36 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 28 Oct 2003 11:07:37 -0500:
'I agree that social changes are slower than intellectual.'
Your subsequent examples (Iraq, European immigrants into the USA) of
supposed quick social changes were for me an example of a change in
conservative intellectual patterns of value respectively an example of
changing participation in unchanging social patterns of value.
A broad versus a narrow view or the level of abstraction shouldn't make a
difference for (our agreement on) social changes being slower than
intellectual ones. You would have to compare with intellectual changes
viewed as broadly/narrowly or on the same level of abstraction.
Your (10 Nov 2003 11:47:14 -0500) 'the social pattern changed dramatically
for the immigrant's children' still strikes me as a wrong way of reasoning.
Would you accept my reasoning if I told you that an inorganic pattern can
change fast because the inorganic pattern changes dramatically FOR ME when I
jump into the water???
We more or less agree (!) on what you write next (10 Nov 2003
11:47:14 -0500):
'I agree language is both a social and intellectual pattern of value and the
linking pin between social and intellectual levels. Language is necessary
for "thinking" or, in Pirsig's terms, the "intellect" as opposed to the
"intellectual." I maintain thinking, intellect and thus language go back to
prehistoric man because that's what separated humans from animals. Pirsig's
suggestion some might claim animals "think" flies in the face of his own
definitions and common sense.'
Only: I would write A linking pin and I would specify that SYMBOLIC language
may have separated humans from HOMINIDS. (It's social patterns of value like
stronger group solidarity and the incest taboo that separated hominids from
other animals between 1 and 2 million years ago.)
Regarding the supposed 'social danger' of Rorty's theory that 'truth' is
founded intersubjectively:
It occurs to me that you are reasoning against the DESIRABILITY of
'groupthink' (which Rorty is not defending) and not against its EXISTENCE
(as a basis of what people call 'truth'). Rorty's theory does not deny that
people should resist 'groupthink'. By denying that 'groupthink-based truth'
is based on fundamental, absolute, objective standards for 'truth', it even
facilitates such resistance.
I'm curious what 'fundamental premises' you are going to find in my
'economics of want and greed' thanks to my summary. You will be searching
for left-wing radicalism and for visceral, irrational hatred of people like
you of course. (-: Well, if you search hard enough...
American politics would be very funny from the outside because of those
mutual hatreds you Americans are showing each other if there wouldn't be so
much power involved. I define politics as 'working together on the future of
a society as a whole'. Do you think that a country that interprets politics
as a fight for power to determine that future rather than as a cooperative
effort deserves to be superpower that determines to a large extent our
global future? Was that really the vision of your Founding Fathers?
I doubt it, but if so, THAT's what I would call dangerous ideas!
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 22:42:29 GMT