Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: HAB: Understanding


Tim Clark wrote: 

> I was under the impression that both the discourse ethics and the
> communicative reason, which Habermas sometimes treats seperatly
> were centered not on 'resolving differences', which sounds to me
> like homogenization, but on acheiving a mutual understanding of
> opposing positions from which the parties in those positions are
> better able to coordinate their actions, and ideally, continue to
> expand that understanding so as to be able to coordinate action in
> the best manner possible at any particular time in the overall
> discourse. 

I suddenly got a flash:  that this depends on whether you're talking
about the Right or the Good.  I think we are trying to resolve our
differences of the Right;  I think you are correct about being
primarily concerned with "mutual understanding" when discussing the
Good.  But even in the domain of the Good, it seems to me, we are
still in a process of coming to agreement, even if we don't HAVE to
come to agreement to coordinate our actions.  We do, however, have
to come to agreement about what is Right.  Does this make sense to
you?

>     The process has always seemed to me to be a means of levelling
> the field of discourse in order to both facilitate a more fully
> realized communicative process, as well as create a situation in
> which agreements can be provisionally reached and acted from. In
> otherwords, its not just a matter of first and second moments, but
> an ongoing process. 

I agree that the achievement of a temporary agreement (a compromise,
perhaps, instead of a true agreement) does not end our search for
such true agreement.  That search is indeed an ongoing process.  (I
say this in my paper.)  But no matter how we level the field of
discourse, facilitate discourse, and create a situation in which
agreements can be provisionally reached, we are still faced with the
problem of what to do when we can't reach agreement in the time
available.  That's where M2 comes in.  As you'll read in the paper,
I believe that Habermasians (like the early Habermas himself) rely
too much on the idea that some Ideal Speech Situation will save
them.  I think this results in an over-idealistic view of H. 

> Steve-- I'd like to get a copy of that paper. Thanks.

Tim (or others)--It's available on my web site
www.d.umn.edu/~schilton. Check it out, and if you want a hard copy,
I'll send one to you. 

Best,

Steve

*************************************************************
| Stephen Chilton, Associate Professor, Dept of Pol Science |
|    Univ of Minnesota-Duluth / Duluth, MN 55812-2496 / USA |
|                                                           |
| 218-726-8162/7534   FAX: 726-6386   Home: 724-0979 (home) |
| www.d.umn.edu/~schilton    EMAIL: schilton-AT-mail.d.umn.edu |
|                                                           |
| "You cannot demand your rights, civil or otherwise, if    |
| you are unwilling to say what you are."                   |
|	- Merle Miller, novelist [via Shawn Burich]         |
*************************************************************



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