So if I admire a novel, piece of music, or painting and think it is great art and all my 'buddies' don't, I am wrong - if not mentally disturbed??
DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [???] RE: Music and all that jazz Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:25:48 -0400 > Frances to Derek and others... > > > > My insistence on the need for some relevant communal group > to make tentative determinations about what might be good > and best in regard to the issue at hand is based on the > pragmatist assumption that the determinations made by a > sole individual person alone or a sole communal people > alone is simply not reliable, at least when it comes to > issues of some import in say religion and art and tech and > polity and philosophy and science. It is an agreed > consensus of contingent opinion amongst reasonable experts > that will be held as good, which they ought to eventually > arrive at via consistent and persistent inquiry. The group > may not always get it exactly right every time, but then > that is evolution for you. Human thinkers who are rational > and reasonable make good guesses most of the time, and in > groups this natural inborn tendency is exemplified. The > good after all is as it is given and found and as they get > it and take it, rather than what they wish or will or want > or even need. What the members of any group must resist > among other things is the risk of becoming proud to be a > member of that group. This kind of intolerance often > excludes others to the detriment of wise determinations. > The trick is to cleanse and purge rigid dogmatic beliefs > from the minds of groups, and do it well and often. One > way to do this is with semiotics via the ongoing > interpretation or deconstruction of engrained paradigms. > > > > On my using the primitive example that the least of a > "group" may simply be the buddies of a sick person who is > suffering a mental disturbance and afflicted with > imaginary fantasies or deluded illusions that are real > enough but that he wrongly considers as factual and actual > and concrete, is not to suggest that a deference or > preference on the part of a well person indicates they may > be suffering from a mental disturbance, but it is to > suggest that the individual adopted choice may be > communally agreed as bad or wrong. The best example that > the most a group might be seems found in the realm of > science, which activity in its presence is an evolutionary > exemplar of what is basically good. In other words, all > humans are genetically related as one systemic family, > therefore the task of making smaller groups to serve > specific functions that are wise ought not be difficult.
