Re: Personality

From: Judy Diamondstone (diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 07 2000 - 11:06:53 PST


Andy, Thanks for working hard to communicate here. I think you are right,
we are presupposing different conversations "behind" what we write.

I responded to your:
the class of manual
>labourers may one day be a thing of the past?"

inferring that you meant that we would one day enjoy a classless society.
That connotes for me a just society.

you wrote:
>Contradiction is an essential (precisely !Essential) part of rationality.

which helps, and:

>"Collective capacity" *is* rational.

This is rhetoric I'm not familiar with, so I can't agree or disagree.
"Collective capacity" as I understand would not be simply rational, but I
don't mean to attack you by saying so. We are talking across differences in
our respective histories of "conversation" -- that seems both difficult &
fruitful.

You wrote:
>What I could have difficulty in
>describing as rational would be: stasis, randomness, an individual in
>isolation, and things like mis-reading of messages, people saying/doing
>things that they don't mean to do and so on.

So that's not rational -- saying doing things that have unintended effects?
-- Even if the saying was the result of our reasoning?

But malice and lying, making
>decisions on insufficient information and mistaken beliefs etc., are all
>part of rationality. No hard and fast line, but you get the idea?

So if the effect is intended, then the utterance is rational?

It still sounds to me (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that you
privilege rationality as THE means to social change, whereas, for the
reasons you suggest above, I would consider it an insufficient means.

Again, I will apologize for my ignorance of Marxism, which I know only
through the U.S. version of CHAT -- I bring to CHAT related traditions of
theorizing social life, so I appreciate the help understanding Marxist
principles that is available in respectful conversation.

Judy

At 08:12 PM 11/7/00 +1100, you wrote:
>I said: "Division of labour: this proposition was more controversial I
>admit, but are you rejecting as "sansara" the idea that the class of manual
>labourers may one day be a thing of the past?" and Judy said: "Yes,
>something like that. I don't think the information society will be more
>equitable than industrial society. I certainly agree that history is the
>story of certain contradictions being overtaken by others; I don't agree
>that this progression connotes more justice -- that it leads inevitably to
>a more just society."
>
>Who said anything about today's capitalism being more just? When I say
>something, Judy, do you recognise it as having been said by somebody else
>(say Habermas?), who went on later in their life to say something else, and
>this something else you assume I am leading up to as well. In other words
>do you assume a kind of mechanical, deterministic uniform rationality which
>I would never subscribe to.
>_________________________________
>I said: "I find it difficult to express this simple thought without seeming
>to say something about "the inevitability of progress", but the whole of
>human history is based on contradictions being *overtaken* by others. If we
>simply say that the idea of hunger being overcome is "sansara"; are we to
>explain all the phenomena of history as simply people trying to fulfill
>their basic animal needs, because it's "sansara" to imagine the resolution
>of such a contradiction?" and Judy said: "yes. I think this is where we
>disagree. If hunger is overcome, the struggle for available goods is not.
>But I am speaking from within a capitalist system. Nevertheless, I'm
>skeptical that capitalism can be overcome by way of so called rational
>decisions...."
>
>That's not disagreeing with me at all Judy. It's disagreeing with someone
>you had a discussion with some other time some other place. Where ever have
>I esaid anything vaguely like "that capitalism can be overcome by way of so
>called rational decisions...."??
>_________________________________
>
>Judy, I still think this is just misunderstandings. I mean how can you
>counterpose power to rationality? The two are inseparable. "Right is might"
>is of course a statement which only remains true within certain cultural
>and historical limits, but within those limits it is quite literally a
>*law*, "the" law in fact.
>
>Andy
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
>| All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational |
>| solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.|
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:01:01 PST