Not at all Francis - after all, hermeneutics originated as a religious discipline! Slip's message above is an example, perhaps, of just how much ideology remains in common sense society and could explain a great deal in conjunction with Habermas. The problem (as Molly is implying) is that 'they' are quite happy for arguments in good sense to take place, knowing they can corrupt them in common sense (vaguely Gramscian here). I tend to believe we need to move practice, and we avoid the arguments about how to do this given what we know. Here, 'they' are happy for us to conduct discourse analysis, certain that the dialogue will stay between those competent, knowing there is little or no transfer to the common sense they can manipulate. I see almost no practical understanding of simple concepts in thinking and behaviour analysis, and a mass of false statistical manipulation and a politics of promising repeated over and over. Here, Brown is 'promising' to take £15 a week off our poorest (stopping them keeping 'excess' housing benefit) and offering nothing on bwanker bonuses and unemployment. Threatened with new tax, the bwankers are openly saying they will simply pass the costs on to us, along with the usual threats to leave the ship to sink. What we need is to better believe what we can know and get this into practice. Getting people to list 'great leaders' usually produces a dreadful crew - Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, Regan and so on - pretty much just what we should be avoiding, though we need to know just how much propaganda influences us. Underlying all this, I suspect we are believers in 'dirty hands' morality, a competitive world in which leaders must be 'street-wise' in Macht politik - otherwise how could be swallow such junk as the 'reasons' we are in Afghanistan. This is barely challenged in our media, who generally collude with it to appear 'in the know'. Our societies are running with a lot of unemployment, under-employment and the exploitation of miserable job conditions abroad (and at home). I think employment relations could be key to practical change, and we should remember we are 'arming' all points East with the very manufacturing technology that once drove our empires, and that switches in this led historically to new empires coming West. I believe capitalism is killing us all, but this doesn't lead me to failed quasi-marxist models (which are falsely used to give credit to capitalism, despite having been models of State capitalism themselves). I would favour small communities of exchange and a wider model of planet government; but we would need to understand why we should want this and its limitations. Argument generally fails to bring enough of what is really being said and implied to the table, partly because participants work with unresolved, unaware assumptions. Hermeneutics models this rather well, but requires much training for proficiency and representation. A key assumption in democracy is that voters are informed enough - as long as we keep this up 'they' can play the Macht games. In a world of potential plenty, we keep most people in poverty or fear of it. We have to imagine a future without poverty and what is implied for governance to achieve it - including unpleasant questions about the use of force.
On 28 Aug, 14:35, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > " it is not a state that can be > > > arrived at, but both a process and a cooperative achievement." > > I agree that coherence can be a product of discourse. But I also > think that what each of us contributes to the conversation can (or > not) be coherent to varying degrees. A post full of opinion and wild > speculation does not, I think, contribute as much to the discourse as > a whole, as would a post with logical coherence, clearly stated ideas > and factual substance. But as you say, agenda can have much to do > with this. If a hidden agenda to disrupt and inflame is a foot, > opinion and wild speculation would be the better tool to achieve this > agenda. I too like the cooperative achievement form of coherence in > discourse, and have found it often here. Which is why I keep coming > back. Simpatico. > > On Aug 28, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nice link, Molly. I like this particularly. We often tend to forget > > here that the encounter itself between the interlocutors has its own > > meaning and dynamic. (I know, Neil will now get annoyed with me for > > being all critical-theoryish, and my daughter would give me a lecture > > on the hermeneutic circle :-).) In my own defence, I would claim that > > personal and interpersonal agendas are often the real motors running > > ostensibly different processes > > > "I take coherence as an interpretive notion, which, because it is > > dependent on the hearer's ascribing an understanding to what he hears, > > is intrinsically indeterminate. Coherence is not a discourse-inherent > > property, but 'comes out' of discourse - it is not a state that can be > > arrived at, but both a process and a cooperative achievement." > > > Francis > > > On 28 Aug., 13:59, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=9OkoNXcZuN8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=coh... > > > > cooperation and coherence in conversation can be important... > > > > On Aug 28, 7:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I guess you are correct Don, perhaps not for the reasons you invisage > > > > though? > > > > > I can see what BB is talking about but he leaps from one point in the > > > > debate to another without explianing why. > > > > I can see the differances in our stances I would like to try to > > > > understand why we have them, for that to happen I'm willing to explian > > > > the reasoning behind my own yet when I ask for others to do the same, > > > > I basicly get shouted at. I don't mind that as long as part of the > > > > shouting contians some form of explaination. > > > > > On 28 Aug, 12:11, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It sounds to me like you'd like to see the elimination of commerce. > > > > > That is > > > > > impossible. Ever since the first caveman traded a dead rabbit for > > > > > sexual > > > > > favors we've had commerce and it is a part of society. Everybody > > > > > working > > > > > together and sharing everything equally might work if everyone WAS > > > > > equal. > > > > > Some folks are harder workers, smarter, more knowledgeable, better > > > > > looking > > > > > and have better teeth then others. Until we're all clones of one > > > > > another > > > > > we'll have commerce even if its some form of crude barter. and we'll > > > > > always > > > > > want what others have. > > > > > > Ok, this question isn't even sarcastic. I'm being serious. How come > > > > > I > > > > > understand exactly what BB is talking about and others don't? If I > > > > > believed > > > > > like R. Kennedy and Molly that most folks wanted to help everyone > > > > > else I > > > > > might go right along with socialism with the rest of you guys. But I > > > > > don't. There's the rub. > > > > > > dj > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:28 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can you prove that in order for such a system to work that > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > would have to be forced to provied 'free stuff'? > > > > > > > > You have not provided even an inkling of a "system" let alone me > > > > > > > being able to prove anything against it. You go ahead and show > > > > > > > me how > > > > > > > it works and I will show you the force. > > > > > > > Sorry BB that is not how it works. Shall we remind ourselves what > > > > > > is > > > > > > going on here? > > > > > > > I have given no system except to say lets ban money lets get rid of > > > > > > the whole concept of it. I have admited that it is merely an > > > > > > idealsitic propersition and that I have no idea how to implement > > > > > > such > > > > > > a system. But here is the crux. You claimed that such a system > > > > > > would > > > > > > be unethical, I asked how so, you replied because it would force > > > > > > people into give you 'free stuff' > > > > > > > My request to you is simply this, proove to me that such a system > > > > > > would force people into giving you free stuff. You said it, you > > > > > > must > > > > > > belive it so show me why you belive it. There is no question of my > > > > > > needing to proove any thing to you, I made no claims whilst you > > > > > > certianly have. > > > > > > > > > Yes it is a legal requirment here in the UK to ensure that your > > > > > > > > children are educated. I.E. If you let your child skip school > > > > > > > > you can > > > > > > > > be prosecuted. > > > > > > > > Another lovely step taken in the "spirit" of the controlling > > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > Are students jailed for failing to graduate? You might want to > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > that step next. And I think you should just force feed socialism > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > communism in the curriculum while you are at it, as it is > > > > > > > obviously > > > > > > > "correct" isn't it? Of COURSE it is! So why teach anything else? > > > > > > > You need to control all those wrong thoughts. Don't even let > > > > > > > those bad > > > > > > > thoughts start. > > > > > > > Come on now, lets not start with the 'unreasonable' leaps of > > > > > > sillyness. Why would a legal requirment for parents to get their > > > > > > children educated end in arrest for students who fail to graduate? > > > > > > Get ahold of your temper man, and think about what you are putting > > > > > > down in writting here. > > > > > > > > Deciding what is best for others is best! They don't "know" > > > > > > > what is > > > > > > > best for them. Forced education of forced ideas! What could be > > > > > > > better than that? It is what is good for all. > > > > > > > Again where did this rant come from, what is it's porpuse and it's > > > > > > relevance to what we are talking about?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
