From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gwi.net>
Subject: BHA: Re: Do Groups Mean
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 17:00:43 -0400


I don't have time to respond in detail to Howard's very interesting
discussion, but I'd like to look a bit at just one of his points: his effort,
if I understand him correctly, to separate meaning and intention.  At first
this sounded promising to me, but as I rolled it around in my head, I wasn't
so sure.  In fact, I'm not convinced this separation is possible.  Please
note, I am not "attacking" the suggestion, simply asking some questions about
it, which quite possibly Howard (or others) will answer to my satisfaction.

The reason I am balking at this distinction is (at least initially)
political.  Suddenly I had an image of those characters out in Colorado or
someplace who published a book on how to make bombs, which evidently got
pretty broad circulation among right-wing extremist groups here (much on our
minds again, now that the Oklahoma City bombing trial has started).  The
publishers can say, "We're just distributing information--we don't intend
anyone to *use* it, though that's their choice.*  A neat separation of
meaning and intention.  Now in this case obviously we could say that these
publishers are being disingenuous, but my concern is, do we want to support a
philosophical point that can so readily allow such rationalizations?  More
broadly, this seems to bring in a fact/value distinction which positivism
upholds and Bhaskar demolishes.

Re group thinking, I recently stumbled across the following: "An entity *x*
may be said to possess a *mind* at time *t* if and only if it is the case
that it possesses at *t* the capacity either to acquire or to exercise the
acquired ability to creatively manipulate symbols" (PON2, 81 [near the start
of Ch. 3]).  Note: "an entity."  'Nuf said....

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gwi.net
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---