Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Uncle Albert's Train Ride

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Louise, As always, I appreciate your comments. Expertise here has certainly never prevented me from stumbling into a measure of understanding. With virtually
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,

      As always, I appreciate your comments. Expertise here has certainly never prevented me from stumbling into a measure of understanding. With virtually no Hegel, via a bit more Zizek, I'm quite comfortable having others clarify any muddling of the concepts. Since reading Bohm, my interest lies in the dynamic between the whole and its parts, which necessarily involves difference and dialectical reason. Are these metaphysical?

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > What you call your simplistic offering makes some sense to my own amateur understanding, but then I wonder how far I have understood you, when you elucidate further by taking us to the realm of the Absolute. Having read neither Bohm nor Hegel, I am probably out of my depth for such a conversation. I was understanding your metaphor of the circle to refer to a given population, initially culturally diverse with definite points of tension, gradually by dialectical process subsuming conflicts and productive encounters into a new harmony. The context of the conversation was, I thought, the tensions of heritage occasioned by mass migrations, which is why I feel perplexity at resort to metaphysical language. It is not by any false modesty that I am suggesting I may not be up to this conversation - the subject matter in general is rather perilous for me. It yields conflicts in my mind that I do not know how to resolve.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > >
      > > And before Wil has a stroke over my simplistic offering, I offer another . . . namely that the circle represents a totality, a universality, the Absolute perhaps? That gaps in this Absolute appears as difference, which serve to demonstrate this universality. The excluded is already included, though not obvious.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Louise,
      > > >
      > > > In my amateur understanding, this process you nimbly outline is dialectical. The excluded agitate the circle of inclusion until they are absorbed, and the circle expands. While some perceive acceptance as risk, and encourage caution and patience, others recognize the process as inevitable.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Jim, Wil, and all,
      > > > >
      > > > > Wouldn't it be true to say that the norms we inherit include the challenging of norms, and the development of our own set of values? This is not only true of heritage in the West, of course, since human beings innately have these capacities. In Britain, as instance, we are doing so against a background of hundreds of years of struggle for religious toleration, and for free thinking. Or am I unreasonably stretching what is heritage? I would not wish the interpretation to be needlessly static, as though we always understood heritage in tourist board fashion, with those brown street signs that alert you to a nearby historic site or building :-). There are clearly differences, however, between cultures as to what the history of recent centuries has been, in the permission to express values diverting from the norm. In that sense, the heritage of peoples whose customs are largely unchanged over long periods might be said to differ in nature from that of the more dynamic and explosive West. I am not sure about this, but it is, I rather assume, however, a matter of degree. All societies evolve, or decline and perish.
      > > > >
      > > > > Louise
      > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jim,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Thanks.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Irwin seems to conflate virtue and heritage. This is not an Aristotelian idea. In fact, they be mutually exclusive for Aristotle. In a sense, Aristotelian virtue demands a philosophical distance from any unthought rote-being, which is what a heritage suggests. Moreover, heritage does not have anything necessarily to do with the eudaimon at all. Heritage calls for an allegiance. Otherwise, one is in some contention with it. Perhaps by heritage is meant something subconscious, but then it is less Aristotelian still.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Would you not agree?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Wil
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Mary
      Louise, As always, I appreciate your comments. Expertise here has certainly never prevented me from stumbling into a measure of understanding. With virtually
      Message 40 of 40 , Feb 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,

        As always, I appreciate your comments. Expertise here has certainly never prevented me from stumbling into a measure of understanding. With virtually no Hegel, via a bit more Zizek, I'm quite comfortable having others clarify any muddling of the concepts. Since reading Bohm, my interest lies in the dynamic between the whole and its parts, which necessarily involves difference and dialectical reason. Are these metaphysical?

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
        >
        > Mary,
        >
        > What you call your simplistic offering makes some sense to my own amateur understanding, but then I wonder how far I have understood you, when you elucidate further by taking us to the realm of the Absolute. Having read neither Bohm nor Hegel, I am probably out of my depth for such a conversation. I was understanding your metaphor of the circle to refer to a given population, initially culturally diverse with definite points of tension, gradually by dialectical process subsuming conflicts and productive encounters into a new harmony. The context of the conversation was, I thought, the tensions of heritage occasioned by mass migrations, which is why I feel perplexity at resort to metaphysical language. It is not by any false modesty that I am suggesting I may not be up to this conversation - the subject matter in general is rather perilous for me. It yields conflicts in my mind that I do not know how to resolve.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > >
        > > And before Wil has a stroke over my simplistic offering, I offer another . . . namely that the circle represents a totality, a universality, the Absolute perhaps? That gaps in this Absolute appears as difference, which serve to demonstrate this universality. The excluded is already included, though not obvious.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Louise,
        > > >
        > > > In my amateur understanding, this process you nimbly outline is dialectical. The excluded agitate the circle of inclusion until they are absorbed, and the circle expands. While some perceive acceptance as risk, and encourage caution and patience, others recognize the process as inevitable.
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Jim, Wil, and all,
        > > > >
        > > > > Wouldn't it be true to say that the norms we inherit include the challenging of norms, and the development of our own set of values? This is not only true of heritage in the West, of course, since human beings innately have these capacities. In Britain, as instance, we are doing so against a background of hundreds of years of struggle for religious toleration, and for free thinking. Or am I unreasonably stretching what is heritage? I would not wish the interpretation to be needlessly static, as though we always understood heritage in tourist board fashion, with those brown street signs that alert you to a nearby historic site or building :-). There are clearly differences, however, between cultures as to what the history of recent centuries has been, in the permission to express values diverting from the norm. In that sense, the heritage of peoples whose customs are largely unchanged over long periods might be said to differ in nature from that of the more dynamic and explosive West. I am not sure about this, but it is, I rather assume, however, a matter of degree. All societies evolve, or decline and perish.
        > > > >
        > > > > Louise
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Jim,
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Thanks.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Irwin seems to conflate virtue and heritage. This is not an Aristotelian idea. In fact, they be mutually exclusive for Aristotle. In a sense, Aristotelian virtue demands a philosophical distance from any unthought rote-being, which is what a heritage suggests. Moreover, heritage does not have anything necessarily to do with the eudaimon at all. Heritage calls for an allegiance. Otherwise, one is in some contention with it. Perhaps by heritage is meant something subconscious, but then it is less Aristotelian still.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Would you not agree?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Wil
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.