I still owe you the third installment of my feverish musings, but let me
apply a mid course correction before I do.
Rolfe Windward writes:
>Alternatively, the gender issue and others may be at least partially
>"settled" by neither acquiesence nor combat.
This presupposes two important things.
- That there is a "telos" to gender transformations.
and
- That there is a "issue" that can be settled.
However neither applies if gender is an arbitrary division. If gender is
arbitrary then there is no "optimal state" we an strive for. That would
asking is if it is better to drive on the left or right side of the road.
Both schemes work equally well in the countries that use them.
As to settling the issue of gender - how can you settle it? We are
clearly unhappy as a society with the present arrangement, so we are
going to change it. However, there is no criteria that can be brought to
bear to decide upon the infinity of alternatives. The new alternative
may be no better, and there is no way to deciding beforehand.
I also want to nudge Gary Shank to put is money where is mouth is when he
suggests a pragmatist solution of the Maori vs Western impasse in New
Zealand. He writes:
>I am forwarding the following message from the Peirce list,
>because I think it addresses some of the fascinating and important
>issues you raise about the British and the Maori in New Zealand,
>among other things.
However, I craved that example (in the philosophical tradition) to be a
"pragmatist buster." I believe it resists precisely the sort of solution
that a pragmatist might propose. It has the following critical
properties:
The ultimate issue is arbitrary. It truly does not matter what landmarks
are called in New Zealand. Once names are settled upon, any language
phrase will serve as a suitable referent to any particular landmark.
- Thus there is no "a priori" pragmatic solution. It literally makes no
difference.
There are *two* cultures not one. Both of whom has some legitimate claim
to using their own customs to resolve the conflict. The two cultures
coexist. (Okay I am making some idealizations here, but the conflict in
it's purest from is captured here.)
- Thus there is no way to appeal to "everyday" resolutions to the
conflict. In this case, the "everyday" worlds are themselves in
conflict. Moreover, (again idealizing) there is no "pragmatic" way to
resolve the appeal between the conflicting cultures.
It seems to me that pragmatism is up a creek on this problem. However, I
don't know all the subtleties, so I'm a quite curious. How would a
pragmatic philosophical approach deal with this mix of arbitrary elements?
Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .
: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:...................................................................:
: We can not recapture the past any more than we can escape from it :
: Linda Lichter :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .