I don't know if we disagree Judy. I would not assume so. To say: "To
imagine a totally rational human world is ridiculous" to me, begs the
question dreadfully.
Correct me I'm wrong, but I will take it that your opinion does not hinge
around the word "totally". Obviously, there are aspects of being human
which are not rational and there are very few statements of this kind which
uniformly apply to all the phenomena of the Universe.
Likewise, I will take it that you accept that rationality is something
manifested in human activity and nothing else, that you are not making some
statement about the degree of conformity of human action to some
extra-human standard of rationality. As you said: "Our activities, ..., are
the basis for meaning."
So, I assume that your comment about sansara means that you reject as
ridiculous the *resolution* of contradiction. Perhaps you misunderstand me,
because otherwise your position would be untenable I think. I was making no
statement about the second coming or the ultimate heat death of the
Universe, only a broad observation about the course of development of
concepts. And you describe this as "sansara"?
Vygotsky's example of the development of rational speech for example. Are
you saying that speech and thought are irreconcilably separate and opposed
and that it is ridiculous to say that words carry meaning? Surely not. My
ultra-simple example: are you saying that once two people disagree, then it
is normal for that disagreement to remain unresolved forever? 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?
Another example, human needs. Hunger is a contradiction that drives people
to activity. Is it just nonsense to see this contradiction passing into the
past and being supplanted by other needs which formerly didn't exist? Such
a thought is not about the elimination of hunger in the sense of the
arrival of Utopia; people didn't go to the Moon to find food. 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?
I'm sure there must be some misunderstanding.
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 - 01:00:58 PST