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