From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 13:24:28 GMT
Dear Wim,
> 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.
I don't see how you can justify a separation of social patterns from
"participation" since social patterns arise from participation by
individuals.
>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???
Can we agree that social patterns are less stable and thus more subject
to change than inorganic patterns? Isn't your "economics of want and
greed" thesis aimed at changing social patterns for the better?
> We more or less agree (!) on what you write next (10 Nov 2003
> 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.)
The definition of "hominid' according to Merriam-Webster is:
: any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals
comprising recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related
forms
Note "comprising recent humans." My point about thinking extending to
prehistoric humans refers to homo sapiens (intelligent humans) and
Neanderthals, the earlier form of homo sapiens. Sorry if I failed to
make that clear.
> 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 haven't come across anything that suggests Rorty would advocate
resistance to "intersubjective agreement" or what I call "groupthink."
(If someone can show a difference between the meaning of the two
phrases, I'd be glad to be learn what the difference is.) But, I ask
you: Is not Rorty's "Truth is a matter of intersubjective agreement" a
fundamental premise of his philosophy? Further, I hope you will address
my question about "Who are these inter-subjects?"
> 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?
I take it you disagree with Pirsig's assessment of "cooperative
effort:"
"What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates is that the twentieth-
century intellectual faith in man's basic goodness as spontaneous and
natural is disastrously naive. The ideal of a harmonious society in
which everyone without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else
for the mutual good of all is a devastating fiction." (Lila, chp 24)
>Was that really the vision of your
> Founding Fathers? I doubt it, but if so, THAT's what I would call
> dangerous ideas!
Our Founding Fathers agreed with Pirsig's assessment of man's
fundamental nature and so set up a government based on checks and
balances that controlled man's natural "fights for power." Considering
America's role in freeing Europe from the horrors of Stalinism and
Nazism, I certainly would hesitate before calling their ideas
"dangerous." Now President Bush has announced an American policy to
spread democracy and freedom throughout the world. Is that the global
future you fear?
With best regards,
Platt
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 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 13:24:12 GMT