File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0309, message 27

Subject: RE: BHA: Re: Re: FWD: Job Opportunity: Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:25:59 -0400

Well, Carol might have put it rather rhetorically, but isn't the question
she poses more concerning depth ontological commitments which could provide
the ground for making the structuring perception mean anything in the first

So the question of popularization must account for its institutional forms:
as Bhaskar himself has observed so passionately, in ordinary lived practice,
we often find agents capable of depth analysis to a degree that puts
philosophy to shame. Ie: selling yourself on the model of the travelling
guru-gun-for-hire may go down well with those already predisposed to certain
forms of new-age self-enlightment, but for those seeking universal
flourishing and emanicipation as a preconition for their own, they may well
smell a rat of the theory practice inconsistency type. 

I'm by no means arguing for a puritanical seperation of marxist and
theological modes: in the rhondda valleys for instance, the
self-organization of workers is unthinkable without the assistance both
practical and methodological of the non-conformist chapels. That they didn't
enter into complete contradiction is because with a depth analysis it could
be perceived that (with differing residual and emergent movements as
distinct from teleological claims) dialectical equivalencies could be
perceived at the level at which meaning is lived and organized which
ameliorated the obvious conceptual disagreements. 

But the question the example begs, is whether the mechanism of publicity
contradicts at a deep level the forms of social practice which Bhaskar
requires for the kind of society he works towards. While I agree entirely
with Mervyn about the positivity of a little popular effort, strategies
which presume an extant and passive audience which has to be "found" or
"reached out to" have generally proven to be illusory and had very
shortlived benefits in comparison to strategies which think in terms of
constructing emergent communities based upon forms of commitment which
aren't afforded by the drive-by lecture. 

The practicality of having the cash to think and work should be carefully
prised apart from the question of audiences. Its news to me that he no
longer has an academic position. I find it shocking, and perhaps we should
be working on campaigning for a secure position from which he can construct
communities rather than supporting his transformation into an itinerant

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Morgan []
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:28 PM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: FWD: Job Opportunity:
Agent-Publicist-Fundraiser andBusiness Manager for Philosopher and
Spiritual Teacher Ra

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" <>
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 ---

     --- from list ---

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005