RE: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism

["Marshall M. A. Feldman" <Marsh@xxxxxxx>]

"A revolutionary is motivated by a great feeling of love"
	-- Ernesto Che Guevara

(I may not have the quote exactly right)

	Marsh Feldman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:58 PM
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
>
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> >5.  A condition of ecumenical discourse is a desire to understand the
> >other, rather than to convert him or her to my beliefs and values.  (I
> >regard this as a loving attitude, but not sexually loving.[I know, "what
> >the fuck does love have to do with socialism?")
>
> Adrian Mitchell means by the line you quote in parenthesis, of course,
> that love in your sense has *everything* to do with socialism. You seem
> to imply the opposite. (Forgive me if I've got you wrong.) In more
> technical terms what you're on about seems to be what Bhaskar calls
> 'assertorically sensitised solidarity' with the 'concrete singularity'
> of the other. ('Assertoric': 'in accordance with the agent's wants, in a
> potential dialectic of wants, needs, and interests' (DPF: 221)).
>
> Mervyn
>
>
> Richard Moodey <moodey001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >Hi Marsh,
> >
> >It might be that we have reached one of those very important "agree to
> >disagree" points in a discussion.  I'll try to state my some
> elements of my
> >position in as non-orgiastic and non-metaphorical way as possible.
> >
> >1.  Ideas do not spread themselves, but are spread only through human
> >communication -- "agency".
> >2.  Some of the most powerful ideas have been either religious ideas or
> >non-religious ideas that are religiously held.  "True believers" can be
> >religious atheists or agnostics.
> >2.  Humans do not "share" meanings, norms, and values directly
> -- senders
> >of messages must express them in symbols (not exclusively verbal) and
> >receivers of the messages must interpret the symbols.
> >3.  Both misunderstandings and disagreements are common, and
> commonly confused.
> >4.  In dealing with misunderstandings and disagreements, I prefer what I
> >call "ecumenical discourse" to violence, whether symbolic or physical.
> >5.  A condition of ecumenical discourse is a desire to understand the
> >other, rather than to convert him or her to my beliefs and values.  (I
> >regard this as a loving attitude, but not sexually loving.[I know, "what
> >the fuck does love have to do with socialism?")
> >6.  There are times when this condition cannot be met.
> >7.  Sometimes people fight because of real conflicts of material
> interests,
> >rather than over differences of belief or values.   We all agree
> (probably)
> >any beliefs can be turned into ideological justifications of interests.
> >8.  At other times, true believers really do fight over differences of
> >belief or values.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dick
> >
> >At 10:07 AM 05/02/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >>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 ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> --
> Mervyn Hartwig
> Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subscription forms:
> http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html
>
> There is another world, but it is in this one.
> Paul Eluard
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---