Habermas wrote widely and was very much a public intellectual. I met him briefly at a conference in Spain on cooperatives.There were a lot of bores at that conference in Vigo, almost competing with Fidel on lengthy presentations. I hadn't actually written anything and had to claim I had left my paper on the plane - a rocky ride with an El Loco pilot trying to land on a mountain in fog. I did an impromptu spoof, partly to dissipate chronic sexism, but mostly for the laughs because the seriousness could be cut with a knife. He did a thing about Western philosophy owing its Christian heritage, which philosophers assimilated by developing ideas of “responsibility, autonomy and justification; history and remembering; new beginning, innovation, and return; alienation, internalization, and incarnation; individuality and community”. The Christian idea of human beings as created in the image of God has been especially important for Western moral-political theory, which translated the religious idea into the secular view of persons as equal in dignity and deserving unconditional respect. He said religious communities still harbor potentials of meaning from which philosophy can learn—potentials that have “been lost elsewhere and that cannot be restored by the professional knowledge of experts alone”. He referred to the “differentiated possibilities of expression” and “sensitivities” regarding “lives that have gone astray, societal pathologies, the failure of individual life projects, and the deformation of misbegotten human relationships”. In acknowledging that religious modes of expression can harbor an integral cognitive content that is not exhausted by secular translations, locating the boundaries of his methodological experiment in demythologization. He called for a dialogue in which secular and religious forms of thought mutually inform and learn from each other. My paper was about why 95% of the presentations at a conference with at least 50% women were delivered by men inflamed with passions of equality and for monologue. This was a crude chat-up line, but went down rather well.
On 25 June, 23:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Some quite old sociology probably would help if we could recognise it > in our thinking and action more often. Goffman talked about 'total > organisations' - from which we might recognise that many have very > little choice and all of us should be wary of total thinking. Just as > we yearn for integrity, someone is using the ploy of sincerity on us - > just as we may realise this we may be using the shell of scepticism in > order to certainly not be able to trust. In the end thinking doesn't > have to be this piss-poor and we could have more practical levels of > transparency. > > On 25 June, 23:24, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's a tough job, but someone has to do it! ;-) > > > On Jun 25, 2:00 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Orny, what would I do - what would the world do - without you > > > correcting me and my eye-sight! > > > > On 25 Jun., 19:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > gabbers, as nice as it would be to give grasshopper the credit for > > > > playing the oldest, here is a photo, and yes, the sound too...of the > > > > oldest. 'Bill', in your article is playing wood (bamboo), this is > > > > vulture wing bone. > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm > > > > > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Relax, dj, that rope has long been > > > > > cut.http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/mus... > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 17:39, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > And how would House Johnson deal with the Fremen? Are you prepared > > > > > > for > > > > > > everything planned by Molly's Missionaria Protectiva (aided by the > > > > > > Mentat, Archytas)? Not to mention Tinker's Face Dancers, along with > > > > > > Chris Muad'Dib Jenkins and his sister, Gabby "the Knife". Me, I'm > > > > > > dreaming Spice Dreams with Slip, who's an expert! > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 15:41, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > And we could call this life Melange. The spice of knowledge. > > > > > > > House > > > > > > > Johnson to control production and distribution. A race of former > > > > > > > humanoids twisted by massive dosages of the Spice learn to bend > > > > > > > space > > > > > > > and travel is reinvented. Yeah. > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:31 AM, archytas<[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > There's been a recent wall built on the question of how we might > > > > > > > > better believe what we know. One of my guesses follows Popper > > > > > > > > in that > > > > > > > > we can't know now what we will know in the future. Say this > > > > > > > > small > > > > > > > > moon of Saturn in the news does have an ocean and life. Say we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > expand our brains by eating this life and there is an expansion > > > > > > > > similar to that alleged in our progression from common > > > > > > > > ancestors that > > > > > > > > didn't affect the other apes in the same way. We might > > > > > > > > actually be > > > > > > > > able to see through the madness, understand travel in different > > > > > > > > ways > > > > > > > > and so on (bit like a video game). On the other hand, if we > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > stop fighting each other, maybe life would change anyway ...we > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > bother with this latter much, seemingly oblivious to just how > > > > > > > > much the > > > > > > > > future could influence thinking and our lives. > > > > > > > > > On 25 June, 07:01, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> It's a Humpty Dumpty ism, but all truth knows that one replaces > > > > > > > >> another and another in succession to maintain the position on > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> wall. Scrabblers pile the bricks and mix the mortar and then > > > > > > > >> wonder > > > > > > > >> why the wall is so high and out of reach. > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 25, 12:31 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > A very apt version of the conundrum Gabby. I think we are > > > > > > > >> > dealing > > > > > > > >> > with madness and consequently a rationality of the mad. > > > > > > > >> > Habermas was > > > > > > > >> > slated for providing too much of an answer, thus becoming > > > > > > > >> > just the > > > > > > > >> > next 'rule-giver', just another intellectual telling us what > > > > > > > >> > we should > > > > > > > >> > do. I just want us not to have to scrabble about making > > > > > > > >> > livings and > > > > > > > >> > get rid of the over-powerful. It just seems so damned > > > > > > > >> > difficult to > > > > > > > >> > even try. > > > > > > > > >> > On 19 June, 17:32, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > I don't know. To think one can promote lying in a society > > > > > > > >> > > is as naive > > > > > > > >> > > as thinking one can promote truing the society. In the > > > > > > > >> > > world you speak > > > > > > > >> > > of, the child is encouraged to publically shout out that > > > > > > > >> > > the Emperor > > > > > > > >> > > is naked while being expected to quietly learn the > > > > > > > >> > > taylor's job in > > > > > > > >> > > their chambers. What is it you're really after? > > > > > > > > >> > > On 19 Jun., 15:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > Habermas is almost impossible to read, which is a great > > > > > > > >> > > > shame. > > > > > > > >> > > > Academic critique of his work actually ends up rather > > > > > > > >> > > > like Gabby's few > > > > > > > >> > > > lines, extrapolated to ridiculous length. He was > > > > > > > >> > > > gazetted into the > > > > > > > >> > > > Hitler Youth at the end of the war, something that only > > > > > > > >> > > > goes to show > > > > > > > >> > > > we can all end up serving perverse human interests. > > > > > > > >> > > > Francis' notion of > > > > > > > >> > > > what might happen through wider communication and the > > > > > > > >> > > > possible > > > > > > > >> > > > differences new technologies might bring to 'argument' > > > > > > > >> > > > is probably key > > > > > > > >> > > > to whether we have a future or not. There has been a > > > > > > > >> > > > debate around > > > > > > > >> > > > legitimation portrayed in academe as between Habermas, > > > > > > > >> > > > Lyotard, > > > > > > > >> > > > Derrida, Foucault and others. My own view is that the > > > > > > > >> > > > insularity of > > > > > > > >> > > > this debate (most people have barely heard of it and its > > > > > > > >> > > > protagonists) > > > > > > > >> > > > is itself part of the problem. Press in the UK has been > > > > > > > >> > > > ridiculing our > > > > > > > >> > > > unworthy politicians through expense claims leaked to > > > > > > > >> > > > one newspaper. > > > > > > > >> > > > Today, Parliament has "published" the details under so > > > > > > > >> > > > much black ink > > > > > > > >> > > > that we would know less had we been left to rely on > > > > > > > >> > > > official > > > > > > > >> > > > "transparency" and we will get much the same when the > > > > > > > >> > > > Iraq scandal is > > > > > > > >> > > > hidden from us next year. What we lack is honesty and > > > > > > > >> > > > substantial > > > > > > > >> > > > links between this and its use in day-to-day actions. > > > > > > > >> > > > Many people > > > > > > > >> > > > believe it is childish to look at work like this because > > > > > > > >> > > > the real > > > > > > > >> > > > world is so dirty. I suspect the real childishness lies > > > > > > > >> > > > in fear we all > > > > > > > >> > > > have of standing up to the bullying system, which we see > > > > > > > >> > > > as holding > > > > > > > >> > > > all the cards We know bosses and politicians are bad, > > > > > > > >> > > > but are > > > > > > > >> > > > generally weak-kneed in the face of power and easy > > > > > > > >> > > > enough to buy off > > > > > > > >> > > > with a few trinkets and the threat of poverty if we > > > > > > > >> > > > stray into telling > > > > > > > >> > > > the truth. Much as I like Habermas, I'm sure these days > > > > > > > >> > > > that work > > > > > > > >> > > > like his is pussy-footing pisswitter lamenting our lack > > > > > > > >> > > > of courage. > > > > > > > > >> > > > His academic critics often referred to him as 'the > > > > > > > >> > > > Professor' as they > > > > > > > >> > > > felt he was advocating a system that had to be followed > > > > > > > >> > > > to put the > > > > > > > >> > > > system right - perhaps they feared yet another righteous > > > > > > > >> > > > theory as > > > > > > > >> > > > potentially Nazi or Stalinist, even if Jurgen was a man > > > > > > > >> > > > of the left. > > > > > > > >> > > > Academe was wet-through with cultural identity garbage > > > > > > > >> > > > back then and > > > > > > > >> > > > still is. I just noticed he was weak on science, long > > > > > > > >> > > > on unnecessary > > > > > > > >> > > > explanation and broadly right on the destruction of what > > > > > > > >> > > > others termed > > > > > > > >> > > > organic links. I was looking for an explanation of why > > > > > > > >> > > > people choose > > > > > > > >> > > > to follow such stupid ways or get caught up in them. My > > > > > > > >> > > > own view is > > > > > > > >> > > > this happens and is a result of the way we promote lying > > > > > > > >> > > > in our > > > > > > > >> > > > societies. The current situation in Iran would be a > > > > > > > >> > > > good example. We > > > > > > > >> > > > don't know whether the election was fixed to favour the > > > > > > > >> > > > Maddinnerjacket, but there are ways to find out > > > > > > > >> > > > (properly conducted > > > > > > > >> > > > and sampled polling) and it ain't what Kameni is doing, > > > > > > > >> > > > even if he > > > > > > > >> > > > might be right about miserable Western interference. > > > > > > > >> > > > It's too hard > > > > > > > >> > > > anywhere for a populace to shift through the dross to > > > > > > > >> > > > get at truth > > > > > > > >> > > > because of liars and what is so easily hidden or flashed > > > > > > > >> > > > in front of > > > > > > > >> > > > us as the good. In our world, the child seeking to > > > > > > > >> > > > shout out that the > > > > > > > >> > > > Emperor is naked is already silenced. > > > > > > > > >> > > > On 18 June, 20:32, frantheman > > > > > > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Jürgen Habermas is 80 today. He is one of the most > > > > > > > >> > > > > influential > > > > > > > >> > > > > contemporary thinkers in the areas of philosophy, > > > > > > > >> > > > > sociology and > > > > > > > >> > > > > cultural > > > > > > > >> > > > > science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habermas,_Jürgen > > > > > > > > >> > > > > One of his most interesting works is "The Theory of > > > > > > > >> > > > > Communicative > > > > > > > >> > > > > Action." I find his analysis of the development of > > > > > > > >> > > > > contemporary > > > > > > > >> > > > > society interesting, particularly his analysis of the > > > > > > > >> > > > > way modern > > > > > > > >> > > > > society can be seen as an unequal dialectic between > > > > > > > >> > > > > private, > > > > > > > >> > > > > subjective "lifeworlds" and an ever more powerful > > > > > > > >> > > > > "system." His > > > > > > > >> > > > > thinking in this area is useful because it offers an > > > > > > > >> > > > > explanation for > > > > > > > >> > > > > some trends we observe in contemporary society, for > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
