Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:43:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Gary D <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: HAB: Re: Intentionality (R Schaap, re: Institutions)



From: Rob Schaap <rws-AT-comedu.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: Re: HAB: Re: What are institutions?


RS>>BillH: Habermas's view does not include intentionality.
>
>GD: This is false. Speech acts are actions. All actions are
intentional.

RS: Aren't we risking a bit of a pointless dichotomy here?  Yeah,
there's always an intentionality in an action, but communicative
rationality is about a group arriving at a point no single intention
has produced, no?

GD: So, "a point" genuinely belongs to the group or else it is
pseudo-agreement or externally forced. The point of the group
arriving is intended and points somewhere else (what "we" do next).

RS: Habermas's stuff about the reason-in-language, about the
procedure/setting for the resolution of competing validity claims,
and about that decisive stronger argument - well, it means nought if
there's a one-to-one intention-outcome relationship, no?

GD: Levels of considerattion are always relevant. One can say that a
speaker's guiding intent emerges from an extended presentation, not
reducible to the intent of one statement within a presentation (which
serves some larger point). So too with group action, where the
emergent resolution or stance of a small group brainstorm may
contribute to the formation of a large group stance (e.g., a program
planning group within departmental planning). There is isomorphism
between one-to-one and group-to-group action ("Development of
Normative Structures," CES, 1979).

Cheers,

Gary







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


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