Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: FWD: Job Opportunity: Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser  andBusiness Manager for Philosopher and Spiritual Teacher Ra
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:28:04 +0100


to be for p l h is against it? what can that possibly mean? and if they are
not goals what are they? surely not inadvertant outcomes of otherdirected
activity? they are part of a structuring perception of what we would want in
the good society - in this sense they are clearly goals - that they are not
achievable through themselves as you suggest is simply truistic and thus
trivial since no one would state to achieve peace I do peace - peace is not
a verb it is a description of a state that necessitates a structured
condition of which it is an achievable outcome.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: FWD: Job Opportunity: Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser
andBusiness Manager for Philosopher and Spiritual Teacher Ra


>
>
> Jamie Morgan wrote:
> >
> > surely a free person in a society of peace love and harmony? I'm not
> > endorsing RB's position merely the commitment
>
> Peace, love and harmony cannot, in and of themselves, be goals of
> action. They are mere (and I think I want to keep that word, mere)
> attributes of social relations achieved through struggle for other
> goals. "Other goals" here is deliberately vague, since there would be
> legitimate debate over what are, under given historical conditions, the
> particular goals of struggle.
>
> Hence positing peace, love and harmony as direct goals is to deflect
> attention from the activities that might contribute to peace, love and
> harmony. One might even put it as a verbal wordplay: To be for peace,
> love and harmony is to be against peace, love and harmony.
>
> Carrol
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




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