Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:43:20 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi Jamie,

Interesting questions, but a little disappointing not to have the whiff 
of an answer.

>Is the free flourishing of all really a CONDITION of the free flourishing of
>each as an ontological imperative to ethical action conditioned by the
>nature of reality?

I'd say so. The arguments for dialectical universalizability in DPF flow 
from the nature of human intentionality (action and the judgement form). 
I can't see anything wrong with them. They of course assume a core 
universal human nature and are informed by knowledge of the increasing 
objective interconnection of the species globally.

>1. Is it the condition because another's oppression occurs or because
>another's oppression is known?
>2. Is it a condition because another's oppression is caused by the society
>in which another who may feel 'free' lives?
>3. Are 1 & 2 both important (causation and knowledge)?

It is a condition regardless of whether oppression occurs, but given 
that it occurs, there is a conatus to inform ourselves about  and 
abolish it.

>4. If MR is RB's current positiion and there is a fundamental level of
>connecitivity does MR imply that:
>a) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
>sentient creatures joined by the 'cosmic envelope'? Am I free if martians
>are bound?
>b) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
>matter-energy - sticks and stones and bones and bunnies?
>
>What is the status of a basic ontological drive towards freedom expressed
>beyond the self?

This is not just a meta-Reality position. Marx spoke of nature as our 
'inorganic body' and that is a position endorsed in DPF, and must I 
think be at the heart of any sustainable sustainability. Because we 
emerged from and are fundamentally dependent upon and connected to our 
inorganic body (and indeed, as Shakespeare reminds us, 'this sensible 
warm motion' of all of us eventually 'become[s] a kneaded clod'), the 
subsumption of having and getting, dominating and controlling, under 
being and doing entails an ethic of world care (I got this from Kathryn 
Dean who got it  from Arendt, I think) and a recognition of the value of 
Being and a yearning to see it unfold which is at the heart of the 
spirituality of the later Bhaskar. If there are Martians then a drive to 
free flourishing according to their natures obviously applies there too, 
and unless it interferes with our own flourishing could only be a source 
of joy and possibly wonder to us.

Is there a 'beyond the self'? Are we not fundamentally connected, from 
quivering strings to self-consciousness, to Totality?

Mervyn

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:50 AM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>
>
>> Hi Tobin, Howard,
>>
>> If the flourishing of each is indeed a condition of the flourishing of
>> all, then it is in everyone's interest that everyone else flourishes,
>> and an ethic of social responsibility is in fact entrained. This is at
>> the heart of the dialectics of freedom as I understand them in the
>> second half of DPF.
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>>  Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
>> >Hi Howard--
>> >
>> >I certainly agree that the thrust of Marx's philosophical and economic
>> >thought in this area is to supplant the concept of the autonomous
>individual
>> >with a deeply social concept of the human being.  That orientation
>appears
>> >all over in Marx -- but not in the statement that "the free development
>of
>> >each is the condition of the free development of all," where we have to
>> >interpolate it (just as you did).  So taken out of context, it sits
>rather
>> >oddly.  From an ethical perspective, it validates the idea that
>> >individuality will remain vital in a socialist society (contra those who
>> >claim that socialism would force a faceless conformity on everyone); yet
>> >it's also possible read it as legitimizing the idea that if I personally
>am
>> >doing well, that trickles down into something good for everyone else so I
>> >needn't worry about them -- writ large, "What's good for GM is good for
>the
>> >country."  Which has its appeal, I'm sure.  In any case, the statement
>> >doesn't press an ethical responsibility to one's fellow human beings,
>even
>> >though that is (I think) part of Marx's ethical intent.  So there may be
>> >some need to integrate the converse ("the free development of all is the
>> >condition of the free development of each") into our thinking about the
>road
>> >to a eudaimonistic world.
>> >
>> >Anyway, I don't think I'm raising a major point of debate, just pointing
>out
>> >a quirk in the language that's worth noticing and thinking through.
>> >
>> >Cheers, T.
>> >
>> >---
>> >Tobin Nellhaus
>> >nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>> >"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>> >
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com>
>> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 04 November 2003 3:20 AM
>> >Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi Tobin,
>> >>
>> >> I take the opportunity to withdraw my use of the term "individualist"
>in
>> >my
>> >> last post and to clarify.  I look at the issue from two perspectives --
>> >(1)
>> >> from each, (2) getting beyond bourgeois right.
>> >>
>> >> First, the object of Marx's analysis is "individuals producing in
>> >> society" -- this is the second sentence of the Grundrisse.  Remember
>that
>> >it
>> >> is only individuals that do anything, and society exists in virtue of
>the
>> >> activity of individuals.
>> >>
>> >> Second, the idea is to get beyond the idea of the autonomous individual
>> >> marked off by private property and bourgeois right and thereby reduced
>to
>> >> undifferentiated and homogeneous abstractions of equality.  From each,
>to
>> >> each places a radical emphasis on concrete individuals -- it looks to
>the
>> >> unlimited unfolding of the capacity and potential of each.  It is this
>> >> wealth that is the foundation of social wealth.
>> >>
>> >> But you are right.  If association generates more wealth than the
>simple
>> >> aggregate sum of its parts, then social wealth is not just a question
>of
>> >> individual unfolding but a question of more or less rich social
>> >arrangements
>> >> as well.  So this too has to be taken into account in thinking of the
>> >> flourishing of all as a condition for the flourishing of each.
>> >>
>> >> Howard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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