RE: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism

["Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure this orgy of sexual and religious metaphors and similes is that
helpful. What we're talking about is an approach to understanding the world
that we think is both more valid and more liberating than other, commonly
accepted approaches. Perhaps we ought to be looking at the Enlightenment or
20th century socialist revolutions to understand better how such ideas
spread and achieve their purchase. In other words, what are the causal
powers of ideas and how do they achieve such powers?

	Marsh Feldman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Richard
> Moodey
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:24 AM
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
>
>
> Hi Mervyn,
>
> To my assertion:
>
> > >Our discourse should be ecumenical, not
> > >evangelical.
>
> You reply:
>
>
> >Isn't this is a missionary position?
>
> Only metaphorically.  It is "making love" face-to-face, but restricted to
> verbal exchanges.  All parties -- because more than two can participate,
> the analogy to the classic missionary position breaks down badly --
> sincerely refrain from trying to convert one another.
>
> But, I have to admit that in one sense, you've got me.  I would
> like to be
> able to convert holy warriors of all kinds from spreading their
> beliefs by
> fire and sword to non-violent practitioners of ecumenical discourse.  So,
> even though I gave up being a missionary for Roman Catholicism about
> thirty-five years ago, when I stopped studying to become a Jesuit
> priest in
> India and Nepal, I am still trying to convert people to a more ecumenical
> way of holding their different beliefs.  And I recognize that many people
> believe that they are called by God or by the forces of history
> to wage war
> against the unbelievers.
>
> It seems to me that CR can provide a valuable critique of the various
> "manichean" fantasies that history is a great battle of the
> forces of good
> against the forces of evil.  That is not how I read Bhaskar's analysis of
> dialectic.  Those who subscribe to a manichean world view cannot agree to
> engage in ecumenical dialogue with those whom they regard as the
> agents of
> some kind of Satan.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
> Yes, and no.   It is a way of conversing with those with whom one
> disagrees.  It requires respecting the other, and the other's beliefs,
> without becoming an "ecumaniac" -- one who thinks everyone else's beliefs
> are better than his own.  Ecumenical discourse has its limits.
> In the most
> obvious case, I can't respect the beliefs of the holy warriors
> who believe
> that I should be killed because I don't believe as they do.
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---