Hi Eric. Thanks for the thoughts. You're absolutely right.
bb
>If one denounces a historical perspective then there is no baseline to
>understand change. Think of yourself as a teenager and how rules maybe
>weren't so important or process seemed a waste of time or (insert your
>teenage thought here) and that when you became an adult you were going to do
>something to correct this perceived wrong. As one matures and transitions to
>an adult this rebelious nature changes (distorts) itself into something that
>is different then when we hold it as a teenager. We may still want to
>instill change onto our environment but the change we want to have happen as
>an adult is almost always different then the change we would prefer as a
>teenager. Denouncing a historical perspective provides no evidence of the
>transition from teenager to adult. Hegel speaks often of transitory movement
>in his essay on 'Natural Law' . This transitory phenomenon is only possible
>if one can understnad the history of the change and the future of a chosen
>activity. ONe dev elops fully from processing past events and predicting
>future events. It is not possible to act in this insightful/plannful manner
>unless there is a separate entity that provides for this operation.
>
>Only time will tell,
>Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:32 PDT