Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Discourse <--> discussion <--> chat
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:11:12
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Dear Fred and List,</P>
<P>I fall on the side of those List members who are not adverse to the presence of current political issues emerging on the List as long as they are discussed from within the perspective of Habermas's theoretical framework. This can mean an exposition of how Habermas's theory of communicative action may explicate/assist-in-the-resolution-of/fails to resolve such issues.</P>
<P>I cringe slightly as I write this (it makes me feel reactionary!) but I don't feel this List is the appropriate forum for many of the polemics which have appeared recently. It has more to do with courtesies and respect in a way. A knee jerk reaction to these sentiments may be *how bourgeois* yet there is a fundamental morality of respect embedded in politeness which I think contributors who are advocating this List be a forum for non-Habermasian issues could consider more carefully. Oppressive behaviour takes many forms and is of many magnitudes. </P>
<P>This having been said I am happy to discuss *discursive insensitivity* or dialogical oppression from within Habermas's theoretical framework. Or else, we could pursue the theme of the coherence of totalising theories of revolution again from within Habermas and his discussion of the tradition of critical theory etc. I see this List as a venue for META-theoretical analyses of critical theory not as a soapbox/virtual barricade/wall-in-need-of- grafitti etc. A quick search shows there to be a plethora of venues on the internet which fulfill just this function.</P>
<P>Regards to all</P>
<P>Matthew Piscioneri</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>>From: Vunch-AT-aol.com </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<DIV></DIV>>To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Discourse <--> discussion <--> chat
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:50:13 EST
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>In a message dated 3/31/2002 12:05:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<DIV></DIV>>dgolash-AT-american.edu writes:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > , it's easier to choose which (or whose) posts to
<DIV></DIV>> > read on this list
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I agree. I think that listmembers here are too choosy about which posts to
<DIV></DIV>>respond, so many threads are soooo short. Also, moving the list solves
<DIV></DIV>>nothing since the problem of practice/theory or political issues will still
<DIV></DIV>>arise, what will the listmembers do then? Obviously, the problems of
<DIV></DIV>>modernity in relation to religious traditions is and was an area of concern
<DIV></DIV>>to Habermas; why and how he remained a modernist is still a point of
<DIV></DIV>>contention in terms of the history of ideas. I am not pleased that some
<DIV></DIV>>listmembers are attempting to run away from it.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>FWelfare
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM301201/10'>http://explorer.msn.com</a>.<br></html>
--- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005