Re: Re(2): ilyenkov-ideal: synopsis >>> response re freedom

From: Paul H.Dillon (illonph@pacbell.net)
Date: Sat Sep 09 2000 - 17:09:58 PDT


RE: Re(2): ilyenkov-ideal: synopsis >>> response re frNate,

Your comments about the 7th generation are very much to the point and I'm glad that you provide a focus around which everyone can agree. I'm imagining that my complete amazement at how the word "freedom" has been brought into this discussion (as an abstract universal characteristic of humanity) must strike many as really bizarre. However, as you clearly point out, freedom cannot be defined in any sense at all without defining the cultural framework in which it exists, not to mention the fact that there are cultures that have neither words nor concepts that correspond to the word "freedom".

The entire emphasis on the individual that is implied in the emphasis on an equally abstract responsibility is so blatantly a product of the laissez-faire ideology of modern capitalism that it literally astounds me to see it so openly and uncritically espoused by people who in my mind, "should know better". The very history of the word should make it more than clear that it cannot be seriously used without being necessarily imbricated in a particular culture's frame of reference which would undermine Alfred's entire intention in using it as a universal characteristic of humanity.

Paul H. Dillon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nate Schmolze
  To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
  Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 6:34 AM
  Subject: RE: Re(2): ilyenkov-ideal: synopsis >>> response re freedom

  Alfred,
   
  It was in the history of the thread - maybe what we could call the political turn. What you did not mention is your post was whose freedom you were referring to. I perceived your use of freedom was somehow countered to Kant or determination - a seperation - where I see them more related. I would prefer the word active determination.
   
  As far as responsibility, of course I agree with that, but in general I think we often tend to link of it as a continium in that we have freedom to as extent where it crosses the line of irresponsibility. I think often what happens is that irrresponsibility is made invisable so we can have this sense we are free. If you see them more relational in an ecological framework in that action (freedom) at one point of a system has consequences in another (and the importance of making this explicit) we are in agreement.
   
  As far as transcendental what I didn't perceive in your work up was how on one level yes we can give it a universal quality. As humans we can do things - change our world, but what lacked for me was how freedom is given its meaning from particular cultural practices. How our choices and freedom is realized is situated in a specific cultural context. Rather than something like freedom I prefer James Wertsch's characterization of agent and mediational means. We need to understand them together not as seperate entities. The pole vault comes to mind in that the historical changes caused certain consequences. One who was great at the activity prior to fiberglass may suffer and see fiber glass as a constraint to action. Our sense of freedom can not be seperated from its social context.
   
  So, maybe a better question would be how this is all worked out in a sem-eco framework. How do we think of action, freedom etc as not severed from the social context in which it exists. Responsibility fits in here too - how we think of it as situated in culture. Now as one Native American speaker mentioned once all of their political meetings are started with one simple question - effect on 7 generations. Now this is a very different notion of respnsibility than we tend to be used to. We usually think of the individual and something else. Here the focus is not only now, but 7 generations, not only humans but the trees, plants, etc. He also mentioned an elder was a guest speaker (asked to pray) for a Canadian policy meeting and listed the name of every plant and tree. The prayer lasted 3 hours and the prime minister was not exactly happy but hopefully he had a better sense of who or what is included in responsibility.
   
  Nate
     



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:50 PDT