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

Re: Changes to existlist

Expand Messages
  • Louise
    Mary, Sorry, obviously the previous post was the result of accidental send, consequence of a desk piled high with bits of paper, interfering with elbow-room.
    Message 1 of 41 , Mar 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      Sorry, obviously the previous post was the result of accidental send, consequence of a desk piled high with bits of paper, interfering with elbow-room. I had just been thinking that no-one will want to discuss these topics again when I found your reply :-). It's rather late here for me, so I will take a rest from cogitation now. Congratulations on your quick-thinking success!

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      >
      > Louise,
      >
      > I'm happy for this discussion to resume after so many months, possibly years. These are not issues which lend themselves to quick resolution but care and respect, of which you are exemplary. I just quickly guessed both portions of Final Jeopardy answer, only because my scant familiarity with some of Shakespeare's plays allows my trivia laden brain these simple, yet satisfying victories. This ability at competitive gaming is useless for the kind of conceptual thinking now required, but I look forward to the challenge of understanding.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Mary,
      > >
      > > Yes, I think we shall agree in many respects, but the particular reference to 'fear of loss' in my second paragraph had behind it something I instinctively knew was contentious here at the list - or in contemporary Western discourses, generally, at least in most respectable circles. Wil has been quite clear in his rejection of the notion, 'heritage', and I think this is as good a term as any with which to grasp the nettle.
      > >
      > > What I was trying to relate in my second paragraph is a kind of doubleness I feel, about my humanness and my ethnicity. Whereas I recognise what Wil so clearly brought into view [55211] when disagreeing with Irvin about the basis for Mitsein - i.e. that (if I do indeed understand) it is our humanity and not our ethnicity which ultimately grounds both charity and empathy (not synonyms, in my view, whichever 'charity' we intend), nevertheless our ethnicity may be bound up with heritage whose dissipation entails real loss.
      > >
      > > In attempt to be more concrete, in the interests of clarity, one might take the example in the political domain of immigration policy (a form of exclusion, or inclusion, in action). Massive flows of immigration may readily evoke fear of loss in different individuals and groups, and, for instance, in the case of the ethnic majority, the loss feared may be loss of heritage, including the disappearance of the actual land under tarmac, brick and concrete. This does not constitute proof of prejudice, but may be result of observation and reflection. This was the matter with which I expected Wil and possibly yourself to disagree. Of course, my example does not preclude further interpretations of how loss occurs, the depredations of capitalism in general, etc. My position is that a reflective sense of ethnicity and heritage may be felt without necessary loss to one's sense of that which is universally human, and that the conflicts this may generate cannot be avoided without shutting down certain forms of thought. Some find this (shutting down) desirable - and 'racism' is a prime example. I do not know whether I am a racist or not - I guess that would depend on definition.
      > >
      > > There are various loose ends here, but I will post this tentative effort so far. I am trying just to get a sense of selfhood in the most uninhibited form, sceptical of what is currently thought acceptable, because no attempt to 'embrace the Other' is possible without bringing the whole of oneself to the encounter. Is culture thinkable without heritage?
      > >
      > > Louise
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Louise,
      > > >
      > > > I agree with both paragraphs. My grammar is admittedly often convulsive -and- thoughtfulness, or careful thinking, is compatible with fear of loss and liberation from prejudice. Yes, something very complex is occurring, and philosophical discourse is needed more than ever.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Mary,
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you for clarifying. Since Wil understood what you meant clearly enough to agree with you, I thought I was probably being slow. I have the impression that you are synthesising various insights and sometimes the result is to render the grammar somewhat convulsive - to borrow a term from Andre Breton :-).
      > > > >
      > > > > Your second point, about your post 55213 (Mitsein), puts me in mind of the difference between prejudice and bigotry. I also have a feeling that something very complex is happening in human societies when there is exclusion. Fear of loss is quite compatible with thoughtfulness, and with freedom from prejudice. I don't suppose Wil would agree with that, though, and neither, perhaps would you.
      > > > >
      > > > > Louise
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Louise,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > You're right. It's a dreadful sentence. Critical differences should be confronted AND explained. By melting pot, I mean an assimilative amalgam wherein major cultural differences are disavowed yet endlessly simmer, never coming to the full boil of dialogue or evaporating into some kind of reasonable synthesis.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I was actually more horrified by a sentence in the previous post. The endless process of new difference meeting the old inert is unstoppable, so personal discrimination and exclusion toward other aren't as harmful to the unfolding of being as state sponsored oppression, ethnic cleansing, or genocide.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Mary
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Mary,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'm unable to understand your second sentence, in particular the function of the 'unless' clause. It seems to say that either differences should be explained, or they should be confronted. I'm not sure what this means, in practice. Your reference to 'a melting pot mentality' has also confused me grammatically, though the sense would seem to be that differences in a melting pot are disavowed and not explained. Is that right? I would appreciate it if you could indulge me by expanding on or refashioning that second sentence.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Louise
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Jim,
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > My take on the distinction between multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity is one of preserving and privileging important principles, while respecting universal otherness. To enable progress of philosophical concepts, unless differences are explained rather than disavowed, such as in a melting pot mentality, critical differences should be confronted.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Mary
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Wil,
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Thanks for the further discussion of die Volk and mitsein. I am happy to agree with all that you write apart from your remark at the end on multiculturalism, which you say is "a kind of nihilism and false relativism".
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I am aware that multiculturalism is currently been attacked by both the right and the left, however, I don't really understand the left's attack on it.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > My understanding of multiculturalism is that it is the project of informing all citizens (particularly schoolchildren) of the nature of the various cultures their friends and neighbours belong to.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > The aim is to educate all to understand the different heritages of their fellow citizens. The aim is to do this in a non-judgemental way, so that all can feel that their heritage is being represented faithfully and without distortion and prejudice. The idea is to enable ethnic minorities gain self-confidence in an environment which can be hostile to them, and to enable the indigenous population better understand the non-indigenous population.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I think this is a laudable aim, and can do much to reduce racism and discrimination, and increase understanding and harmony.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I don't see how this project involves nihilism or false relativism.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Jim
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Jim
      Herman, If I recall we had this conversation about two years ago. I agree Aristotle had a moral blind spot when it came to slaves (and women), and this blind
      Message 41 of 41 , Apr 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Herman,

        If I recall we had this conversation about two years ago.

        I agree Aristotle had a moral blind spot when it came to slaves (and women), and this blind spot is a serious blight on his ethics as a whole.

        However, Aristotle was no individualist. He argued that the good life could only occur within the polis, i.e. within a `civilised' state where there was respect almost equals and all contributed to the governance of the state.

        I would extend Aristotle's idea of the polis to the whole of humankind. My ability to live the good life does not just depend on whether I can manifest personal virtues, it also depends on the levels of unhappiness and injustice in my community.

        Jim


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jim,
        >
        > Forgive my quick response :-). I was finishing another post, when I caught
        > this post.
        >
        > On 3 April 2011 17:57, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi Herman,
        > >
        > > Following Aristotle, a virtue is a character trait which contributes to, or
        > > is an element of, the good life. And the good life is the environment where
        > > there is general well-being and the people are happy and flourish.
        > >
        > > Aristotle spoke only for the elite of the elite. The realisation of his
        > virtues demand an entire system of appropriation. There is nothing general
        > about his general well-being. That is why the societies that fashioned
        > themselves after "the Greeks" were just like them. The slavers of the modern
        > world were as interested in general well-being as Aristotle.
        >
        > Sorry :-)
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        >
        > Herman
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.