From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 21:23:52 GMT
Dear Matt K.,
You wrote 25 Feb 2004 18:04:03 -0600:
'I think of [a vocabulary] as a way of speaking. ... I think of it [in]
terms of a conversation. For different conversations, you may use different
words. ... these conversations don't overlap very much in terms of the
purpose, goals, and concepts of the conversation ... it becomes possible to
make a viable distinction between them as being different conversations and
using different vocabularies. There is, however, no permanent or fixed
distinction between conversations and vocabularies except for the ones that
we make. ... Another distinction that the Enlightenment thinkers suggested
is a distinction between the "public sphere" and the "private sphere".'
O.k. A new definition of vocabulary. Let's see what we can do with it.
You turned next to reasons for the distinction between public and private
conversations and vocabularies:
'to protect certain decisions that we think should be left up to the
individual' and 'for purposes of expediency'.
It appears to be the second reason (expediency) rather than the first
(protecting individuals against government) that is behind your arguments to
drop religious truths/insights/inspirations, the Quality vocabulary and
religion and philosophy in general when 'going public' with political views
based on them.
As you wrote: 'My point about the distinction between public and private is
a point about vocabularies. It is a practical suggestion about how to think
about things, about how to talk about things, so we don't come to as many
major stumbling blocks. It says its okay not to talk about philosophy or
religion when we are making policy.'
Essentially you proposed to drop all vocabularies (ways of speaking) that
divide us and make policy together (do 'social stuff') using a secular and
practical (non-philosophical) vocabulary.
You don't seem to recognize that my counter-argument was a point about
vocabularies too:
"this thin strip of public opinion making only leads to compromises of the
kind that safeguard and promote American material and otherwise short-term
interests at the expense of the social and ecological balance in your own
society and in global society as a whole."
Essentially I countered that I doubt whether 'we' (in Western societies)
share any secular and practical vocabulary other than one in which only
short-sighted self-interest counts, in which the only way to reach
compromises is to forget about the future and weigh interests with political
power. A 'strip mine' attitude about the earth and a 'take what you can get'
attitude about fellow people is not a result of perversion but of people
dropping vocabularies that add (whatever) meaning to the earth and to fellow
people beyond 'means to our ends'.
If we want to prevent cruelty between humans and depletion and pollution of
our common natural heritage, there is no alternative for connecting (seeing
as parts of a whole) vocabularies that seem to divide us, by using them in
public and getting used to those from other people. That doesn't imply or
require a state religion (or philosophy, nor even a shared metaphysics).
That requires learning and using more vocabularies, much like people
speaking several languages, and willingness to meet others at their ground
rather than one's own.
You wrote:
'[T]he only way we [secularists] can imagine having Hamilton's pluralistic
salad bowl society is if we privatize some of our beliefs and leave them out
of the political conversation.'
But doesn't privatizing most of those beliefs take the color out of the
salad bowl?!?
I want a colorful salad, with all colors -publicly- in and all ingredients
rejoicing in their diversity and complementarity.
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 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 21:26:06 GMT