Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:52:01 +0100 (MET)
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: h961138-AT-stud.hoe.se (bwanika)
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Criticism




Hans , 

Greetings and thanks for your most interesting one.

I will argue that we do not need a separate theory to tackle these problems.
Now, I going to mention something, which is very sensitive in this regard,
in order to bring about a clearer meaning and understanding, of this very
important issue. Facts are facts.

First, I must mention that we are slaves, of our own languages, which we use
to seek for real definitions. This is not only a problem in social science
but also in natural sciences. How it has been possible, for science to come
all this long , fumbles my mind to say the least.

Now , Howard mentioned racism. This concept is quite problematic, if I am to
argue for or against it, from an evolution science i.e. in physical
geography, biological sciences i.e. genetics or I am to study the same from
an anthropological point of view. Is there race and as such different
aesthetics, morals, cultures and as such different peoples, may be yes may
be not - this might as well be a lay mans point of view and not a real science. 

Why should we talk of a moral , aesthetic theory  etc. then ?

I find this question problematic, in regard to the above concept, " racism
as for tables " had been appended to a social structure,  in our struggle to
get to the said theories, if ever there is such a thing.

Let us look back at slavery in Greece and how that kind of social
organisation has progressed and developed through estranged labourers,
instigated and conspicuous slavery through market psychology - capitalism
and the language use which it has generated to get to " real definitions "
of these human acts and ways.

Now, if all peoples who do dirty work, which one social group could not do,
are slaves or blacks, should we assume that indeed the social class doing
dirty work is of a low moral value, different aesthetics value as such their
ethical value attaches them to doing dirty jobs and in that regard dirty
jobs could not be done but only for that one social grouping ?
Have you ever heard of  many Africans calling themselves Lord John Bwanika ,
for example ?

Marxism has tried all it's level best to bridge these gaps. Before Marx,
there were the farm workers in Southern America, doing these types of work.
There were real definitions which followed to give a scientific colour ,to
such facts. Now our understanding of race relationships, have generated
concepts which just by mention of such words, one will really understand
what one talks about - la Bell Curve and the Black race etc. 

The logical positivist, might refer to the above as cognitively positive or
cognitively negative, depending. I will assume the Lord Mayor of London
still wonders, how the primitive behaviours emerging in this society, could
be economically cured from the English society.  But is he wrong to think
so, let us assume , a brown youth ( English youth )  break dancing to rap
music as her counterparts on a rave party in a sub urban areas in London
does as oppose to the usual philharmonics at a one great theatre!! What do
we mean by aesthetics ?
I am not in opposition to strong ethical values though but the language
should not be polluted will epistemic fallacies. 

I would like to argue that given modes of production generate given
aesthetics , moral and ethical values. Does this  necessitate the use of
TMSA.  I believe TMSA has it limits.
- ontologically embracing a wrong philosophy odf science- generates things
like racist relations, exploitative production relationships and
concretising of polarised gender relationship all based on aesthitics etc.

To me I would like to assume that, it is not methodological ( that is what I
thought before ) but the whole spectrum of the philosophy of language, an
epistimic problem.

For instance ,  if we were to assume that there should be an ethical,
aesthetics, moral theory independent of own natural being,  then this theory
will be encompassed on,  for example whether  Americas piecing rings into
their nose , ears or tits is a completely different social structure which
gives that very society meaning and satisfaction as compared to a "
primitive  Masia ", doing exactly the same things, without the understanding
the very need of  the acts' transcendental realism !

I have of recent become dismissive of the concept of  "cultures"  and
replaced it with traditions as the most favourable and meaningful real
definition. The conditions which are generated by the what Andrew Sayers ,
it refers to as contingents structural / mechanism, has much to do with what
we call, aesthetics, moral and ethical values strictly not theories. What  I
mean, if I am an Africa daily discussing which a European on my Computer
station about gender relations, should I say, advise him/her about an
aesthetic theory about good marriage to stop rampant divorce without
understanding the underlying social pillars, and more so the philosophical
background which over the  years has generated these social attitudes ?

The cosmological science as opposed to established religious teaching tends
to move into different directions, but later converge due to the fact that
TMSA in both these fields , there are grounded postulation, to seek for
beauty in the satisfaction of knowing what is what. God is very good and
offers inner peace, as understanding the universe will give a laboratory
scientist  or cosmologist, control over the elusive universe thus
eliminating her future threats and may be even start engineering in making a
more beautiful universe.

just an attempt

Bwanika
>
>Roughly, the TMSA suggests that we *can* do things, and (have the potential
>to) change things, i.e. we have *agency*.  The notion of emancipation
>suggests we can make a difference.  Bhaskar has been quite successful in
>establishing this philosophical level if knowledge.
>
>But, if the point is to "change the world", we must engage ourselves at a
>practical level  ...  where we, if we hope to have the possiblity for
>changing the world for the "better", will need ethical, moral and asthethical
>theories to make decisions and to ground our judgemental rationalism.
>
>In very broad terms, i am using the notions of moral, ethics and asthetics as
>follows:  moral theory asks "what should be done"; ethical theory "how should
>it done"; and a theory of asthetics "why should it be done".   Whereas at a
>philosophical level of enquiry we are asking "can it be done" (CR informs us
>in the affirmative), and a scientific level asks "what is being done".
>
>In any event, my arguments merely attempts to point out that there exists an
>absence of *strong* moral, ethical, astehtical theory within critical
>realism.  Further,  so far it has been the more radical thinkers who have
>embraced the philosophical ontology of critical realism.  However, it will
>not take long for conservatives to be able to simulate critical realism for
>their own agendas.  The most vunerable point of hijack being (as i see it)
>the notion of "real defination" for the criteria of social and human
>sciences.
>
>...
>
>in absence of my ability to make better arguments,
>
>hans
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
______________________
bwanika




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