From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 28 2004 - 13:03:29 BST
Hi Matt,
> Let me first say how pleasurable this conversation has been. You're one of my favorite
interlocuters, and I must thank you for wading through my obtuse, soapboxing when it occurs.
>
Amen to that. Nice to know that civilised and informed discussion is possible in this forum ;o)
I still don't think I'm quite getting my point across, and that is largely because I haven't been
clear enough in my own mind - and therefore language. But hopefully I am now(!), so let's have
another crack.
The distinction I need to draw is between [what shall I call it, this 'family-resemblance' religious
language, about ultimate aims, that I want to preserve - how about 'God-talk', if that doesn't beg
too many questions?]
(A) God-talk as a necessary part of healthy political discourse within a Millsian framework, and
(B) God-talk as a necessary part of questioning that Millsian framework.
I think that you deny God-talk a place in both arenas, and whilst I'm happy to natter about the
former, I think you have something of a case there. (Your point about laws being framed in secular
terms was a strong one, which I may come back to; it's basically institutionalising the difference
between morality and law? I'm not wholly persuaded, but I don't think it's as important to debate
this as the second). So it's the latter that I really want to focus on, and which - partly because
of how I've been talking - we haven't properly addressed.
So the key point for me is this: to assess whether the Millsian framework is functioning properly it
is necessary to invoke God-talk.
To translate this into MoQish; the Millsian framework is a high quality static pattern of value - it
therefore expresses a certain conception of 'the good' (as I think you'd agree). Static patterns are
healthy in so far as the facilitate the dynamic apprehension of Quality, unhealthy in so far as they
suppress such a dynamic apprehension. A high quality static pattern is one that allows its own
dynamic evolution; a low quality static pattern is one that denies its own dynamic evolution. [Think
normal science v revolutionary science.]
My point (again): "it is at least _prima facie_ plausible that there will come a time when the
Dynamic evolution of [Millsian liberalism] requires a reconsideration of its basic tenets" - in
other words, it is at least hypothetically possible that the framework of Millsian liberalism can be
improved, or will need to be improved, at some point in the future. Now I don't see how that can be
done unless there is some reference made to the quality of the static patterns - or how far they
express Quality as such. It may well be that, as things stand at present, the Millsian framework is
the best we can get, which therefore deserves defence against things which criticise it. But my
concern is that the pragmatist 'add-on' undermines the dynamic potential of the system as a whole -
and therefore, in the long run, is more like a vine on the tree than a flourishing branch.
Part of the issue here is to do with my comment that our conceptions of the good cannot be
formulated "except through the use of non-pragmatic language." You said: "This I think is false and
goes back to our long-ago discussion of Lyotard. To assume that conceptions of the good can only be
formulated in non-pragmatic terms is to assume that you need a metanarrative to contextualize your
thoughts."
To go back to my original request, I want to know how you can express a conversation that allows
development to the static patterns of Millsian liberalism without invoking some framework that is
larger than the system under discussion. Whether this counts as a 'meta-narrative' in an
illegitimate sense we can then perhaps have a debate about, but I don't think it has to. I just
think that the ultimate justification for the Millsian framework has to lie outside of itself - it
can't haul itself up by its own bootstraps - because if the basic tenets are up for discussion, then
the bootstraps have become the issue.
But I could be wrong.
~~~
One serendipitous occurrence: I subscribe to an academic journal (just the one), which came through
my door yesterday. And one of the main articles is a defence of political liberalism in theological
terms, and against theological critics. Do you know John Gray? He may be more known in English
political philosophy than the US, but I think you'd find him interesting.
"Gray distinguishes two entirely different approaches within the tradition of 'liberal' thought. The
first approach understands toleration of difference as being a means to a further end; the
conviction is that ultimately there will be a rational consensus and a convergence of values. On
Gray's account, Locke, Kant and Mill are representative thinkers of this tradition. The alternative
liberal approach, which Gray supports, boasts no such ambition to achieve a rational consensus, and
understands toleration as a condition of peaceful co-existence. 'Peaceful co-existence' is an end in
itself on this approach, and the goal of politics is to find a modus vivendi between incommensurate
but equally valuable forms of life, rather than to project a single political and economic regime.
Gray traces the genaology of this approach back to Hobbes, where the sole purpose of government is
peaceful co-existence."
I don't think this dichotomy affects my argument, but it might be worth chatting about. I'm more
with Hobbes if Gray is right (and my point would then be: there will come a time when 'peaceful
co-existence' maintains less Quality than an alternative).
Cheers
Sam
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 28 2004 - 13:03:59 BST