Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:27:44 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: various queries


As a general preface to what follows: "Im Anfang war die That"
(Goethe). I hold to this with grim literal mindedness. It is true in
principle and in empirical chronology. (For example: human society
is older than biologically modern humans -- probably half a million
or more years older.)

Colin Wight wrote:

> Hi carrol,
>
> As a necessary but non-sufficent condition for the changing of society I
> think acting as you would wish others to act is at least a start.

I remain unconvinced that anyone, including Kant, has ever actully
made a decision based on this principle. I can't even think of any
literary character who made a decision in conformity with this
alleged principle. One always finds oneself (and humanity as a
whole always finds itself) already engaged in activity, and human
thought is a constant struggle to catch up with that activity.

> Kant
> didn't get everything wrong. One can hardly imagine a society of fascists
> attempting to make society non-fascist,

I can hardly imagine *any* society of X attempting to make a non-X
society. I personally engaged in a number of scattered activities based
on various motives, and then found myself engaged in a level of struggle
which required explanation. I doubt that anyone has ever set out, in the
beginning, to change society. People find that they are engaged in
activity that does not make sense unless they expand the activity,
which requires them to expand their circle of connections, which
requires them to change themselves (without, to begin with, knowing
that they are changing themselves) and so on. Whether we are talking
about an individual or the whole human species, the wild idea of
changing society in any extensive way always flows from smaller
struggles, and the necessity for changing oneself comes to consciousness
(if it ever does) only when that process of change is already far
advanced.

> and collective action aimed at
> changing society will only come about when some people deem society should
> change (the necessary but not sufficienbt condition).

Nonsense. The vast proportion of people who make a revolution do
not consider themselves to be making a revolution until the process is
far advanced. If change had to await on "some people deem[ing[
change" desirable change would never occur. We would still be living
in hunter-gatherer bands.

> Of course, none of
> this rules out the possibility of someone saying you lot should cahnge but
> I won't, but I don't take such theory-prcatice contradiction very
> serioulsy.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

> Incidentally do we really need a high-faluting theoretical term
> when the good old homely "hypocricy" does quite well?
>

Deliberate hypocrisy (a redundant phrase) is probably extremely rare.
I can't think of any examples off hand but perhaps some exist. But
what high-faluting term did I use?

Carrol




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