Subject: Re: use or abuse of listservs Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:18:01 -0400 (EDT) From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com> Peter Rugh wrote: > Coherentism, our heroes of turgid moral reasonableness, most of whom shine like > champions of Kant's logic (i.e., Kant's book, "A Manual for Lectures", devoted > specifically to "his" logic, four years before he died) simply ask how the > universe of truths can be made intelligible, with an audience begging them to > relent (and lecturers lining up for lessons). > [...] > Don't get messed up with banter, I guess. You can email me personally, if you > like. If the champs want to have it their way, that's all they'll get, I think. Couldn't one address this problem in slightly more interesting terms? It seems to me that there is no reason to posit it as a dichotomy between "turgid moral reasonableness" and "banter" which should be "emailed you personally". It is not the case that all regulation has to be turgid, authoritarian regulation -- at least I sincerely hope it isn't. Isn't the main theme of Foucault's quest, or Deleuze's quest, or Guattari's, precisely how we could regulate our collective life without authoritarian rule? The way a living organism regulates itself? And it certainly _does_ regulate itself; otherwise there would be no life. How can one make a list that is a living thing, that has the kind of coherence a living thing has -- not the coherence of "coherentism", but coherence nonetheless? A list that makes one's juices flow? A list that is like good music, a good jam session? That, too, has to have coherence, but the coherence doesn't have to be that of a symphony orchestra, which Cage described as "so many riders riding on a single horse". If we cannot collectively create a satisfying email list, I despair that we can create _any_ satisfying social arrangement. -m
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005