From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 29 2004 - 18:32:27 GMT
Matt said: But again, the subject of the question itself (when/where
metaphysics/religion comes "into play at the heart of our political
decisions") is beside the point because democratic citizens aren't concerned
with the heart of your political decisions,
with what gave you impetus to believe what you believe. They are concerned
with the outcome.
DM: My focus is not about political decision making 'management', it is
about changing our
views, rethinking things, going deeper, nothing is clearer than the fact
that we need to start questioning
the decisions we are currently making, I call for self-criticism,
metaphysics and religion are probably key
to such self-knowledge and transformation.
Matt:
> Who said "self/common understanding and pluralism" and the public/private
split are mutually exclusive? I don't think they are at all.
DM: Well I do. As we stand aside whilst our freedom and perhaps our species
goes down the plug hole. Glad to hear you are open minded, concentrate on
the possibility that pragmatism leaves you empty handed, is that where you
want to be?
Where do you think we need to stand on the presidents views about gay
marriage would you say? Any public/private
split working well there for you? I only try to be annoying in a
constructive way I hope.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> Hey David,
>
> Oh, I knew you weren't being funny, I was just being flip, though, because
I am quite convinced by what I've been saying. What I didn't say is that
the reason I re-read my posts is because I love the sound of my voice in my
head.
>
> The static I've been getting from people on this idea of a public/private
split is, I think, because people think I'm proposing something new and/or
radical, when I think most Western beneficiaries already agree to the basic
idea. Like most of the philosophy I'm been expounding, I don't think its
nearly a big a leap as some people are thinking. My reformulations are
mainly me trying to assuage people's fears and trying to explicate what I'm
saying and not saying. But, though I think most people adhere to the basic
idea, I don't think people quite live out the consequences as faithfully as
they could. My explications are also, then, aimed at trying to get people
to live with the consequences of this idea or prepare for the consequences
of the other.
>
> David said:
> Your point about fantasy/hope becoming reality is one I would strongly
support and is obvious, what I wanted toknow was how separate do you think
these things really are. I wonder if the public/private split means only
that certain things cannot be discussed but carry on having big influence on
the dance floor anyway, as you admit anyway, so keeping them off the dance
floor, sorry senate floor, is not really much of a split in terms of what
determines our political decisions, but I would agree that it stops every
decision being discussed all the way down to metaphysics/religion, and
practically stops a lot of going nowhere argument.
>
> Matt:
> This is exactly it. It is not a split in terms of what provides the
impetus for our political decisions, it is a practical channeling of
conversation so that the inquiries that are relevant to politics are not
blocked.
>
> David said:
> But that says more about conflict and how we deal with it then some
special private/public split that is out of court for some reason of
non-relevance. And who is to say when/where something like metaphysics or
religion does not come into play right at the heart of our political
decisions.
>
> Matt:
> I've never claimed that there was anything special about the
public/private distinction other than the fact that the political realm is a
pool we all have our toe dipped into (I'm not sure what you mean when you
say that the "private/public split" is "out of court for some reason of
non-relevance"), so being able to manage that conflict is something that is
relevant to all democratic citizens (unlike other kinds of conflict that are
more specific).
>
> Asking the transcendental-authority-critical rhetorical question, "who is
to say when/where something like metaphysics or religion does not come into
play right at the heart of our political decisions?" doesn't make much sense
to a pragmatist because the pragmatist was never suggesting that there is a
"buck stops here" authority that decides such things. A community coming to
intersubjective agreement on the types of things that have priority over
others and the types of things that should even be on the table to be
discussed is who has authority. But this is simply to say that no one
really has authority. It is to say that the political process is a dynamic
process, one that continually reassesses how it works as it goes along. But
again, the subject of the question itself (when/where metaphysics/religion
comes "into play at the heart of our political decisions") is beside the
point because democratic citizens aren't concerned with the heart of your
political decisions,
> with what gave you impetus to believe what you believe. They are
concerned with the outcome.
>
> David said:
> Hey, the senate/capital floor is where we are meant to discuss our
conflicts. If we keep them outside, some of that conflict will turn into
war/violence and covert operations don't you think. I am for a little bit
more self/common understanding and pluralism and a lot less private/public
split.
>
> Matt:
> Who said "self/common understanding and pluralism" and the public/private
split are mutually exclusive? I don't think they are at all. When you say
"the senate/capital floor is where we are meant to discuss our conflicts," I
think you are slightly wrong. Its not the place where we discuss _all_ of
our conflicts, only our political conflicts, which is why we keep the
religious and philosophical ones outside. I'm not saying that people
shouldn't discuss religion or philosophy with other people, that they should
end those dialogues and thus shut themselves off from understanding certain
people. That would be bad and would lead to some nasty things. I'm saying
that the Capital floor isn't the place to do it. Something like this e-mail
forum is the place to do it.
>
> On the side note of me never changing my mind, I think that's a low blow
and not really relevant. You don't really have any evidence of me not being
"big on changing [my] mind." You can only take my word that I am or from my
efforts in trying to understand other people. Being open to other
perspectives and actually changing your perspective are two separate things.
The one doesn't necessarily entail the other. You have to be convinced to
really change your perspective, you can't really do it because your an open
person and open people change their minds. _That's_ willy-nilly relativism
that nobody but capricious hipsters indulge in. There are certain things
that I'm fairly convinced of: cruelty is bad, helping people is good,
reading books is good, foundationalism is bankrupt, poo doesn't taste good.
Just because I'm open-minded doesn't mean I _need_ to change my mind on any
of these things. It just means that I should remain open to the possibility
that, e.g., poo
> might start to taste good (one of these days...).
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sun Feb 29 2004 - 18:39:01 GMT