From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: HAB: re: Brave New Conditionality Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:53:42 Hello Gary, >Matthew, you indicate that: > >M:... you find me guilty of an excessive instrumentality in my >engagement with Habermas. > >G: But this isnt the case. [snip] >(belches in >the Spoons listserv?). Guess so. >M: For what it's worth NOT everyone undertakes doctorate research in >search of that holy grail of tenure. > >G: Agreed. (I see the apostrope in 'can't' is missing, too). But most >do search for the holy grail, and most published academic critique of >major writers is done under pressure of, first, normatve time, then >annual review cycles within ones department that require multiple >annual publication for advancement, and this causes a lot of hasty >misreading for the sake of publication It's a fascinating process. My original thesis intention was to explore EXACTLY these sorts of industrial conditions (constraints ?) in philosophy. >A common >strategy in critique of Habermas, in order to have ones own Position >(I suppose), is to underread, overread, and/or antiread in order to >justify a position (remediating JHs blindness) that is really just a >development of the blind side of ones own reading (or one's reading >exhibits a project different from Habermas, inattention to which JH >is held accountable). I very much agree with your apt choice of the terminology of *strategy* as regards the dissertation process. Lately, however, I have considered JH to be a POOR choice of target. Firstly, he ain't dead yet, secondly his output is voluminous, and thirdly he has been the favourite target of young gun PMers for a decade or more. Strategically speaking, and probably even this is getting out of date, potshotting Foucault or Derrida et al is perhaps a *better* approach. There is a sort of disciplinary dialectic which I would hypothesise is driven partly by industrial factors and partly by generational factors.It was an eye opener for me when my first supervisor talked freely of *fashions* in philosophy. __________________________________________________________________ >I have silently lamented >readings of Habermas in journals (and books) for a long time, not >that I pose myself as some great exception (but in fact, I do believe >Im a non-great exception; I go my own way *thanks* greatly to JHs >work, posing (to myself) my difference from him as a complement to >"his" kind of work which he exemplifies, ultimately as a participant, >*too*--in solidarity with his present and future fellow travelers). I find these comments intriguing on several grounds. JH is a great synthesiser, and has been *accused* of misreading the classics (I think Giddens levelled this muted charge in Bernstein's collection... but I could be wrong). Also, I recall ( but cannot put my finger on it at the moment) when JH saw the usefulness of misreadings as a sort of mutation (a direct evolutionary analogy) which could lead to the generation of newer perspectives. Still, I am in general agreement with what you say here. Again, though, I get surprised reading the _TCA_ on Adorno, and then reading JH's comments in _Autonomy & Solidarity_ for example. The point I am labouring towards is that sometimes JH is not beyond crafting aspects of his theory for rhetorical effect :-) ____________________________________________________________________ >G: What *is* the need for an ethical framework to cover the Age of >Spiritual Machines (Kurzweil, 1999), if not to avoid actualizing the >cyborgian dream thoughtlessly, such that critique of this dream is >the basis for *making sense* of an ethical framework for when >computers exceed human intelligence (Kurzweil)? Sure. I agree. ___________________________________________________________________ >Anyway, my question isnt rhetorical; Im asking: What *is* the need >for an ethical framework to cover AI development? What is the need >that is importantly different from being clear about the cyborgian >dream, at this point, given that (1) there are no AIs to make sense >of, in an ethical framework--sort of like seeking an ethic for >interacting with extraterrestrials; and (2) genetic engineering is >likely to contribute to the cyborgian dream of remaking Eden >(Silver, 1998) before the robot in the garden (Goldberg, 2000) >becomes a child of the Churchlands (Paul and Patricia)? In other >words: genomics has the upper hand, so worries about AI are less >credible than worries about hypercloning. Yep ( isn't agreement boring!). >____________________________________________________________________ > >G: I have trouble making sense of your following comment, so Ive >inserted an [A] and [B] and made some editorial guesses in >brackets. > >M: One of my persistent [risks of] misunderstandings of Habermas is >[my endeavor] to connect [A] his restoration of the normative basis >of CT by positing communication as equiprimordial with labour to [B] >the [basing of the] reproduction of [our] species ( _CES_ 1979, >pp131-38 & esp. p 137) [in] a quasi-foundational commitment to [...] >a process of inherent value [in this reproduction] (or something like >that). > >G: Uhhhh.... So, you want to see (in your own thinking or / and to >see in JHs work) such equiprimordiality as an inherent feature of >our evolutionarity? A keynote here (in my paraphrase, at least) is >homology of threefold interactivities of world relations across a >scale of reflectivity that goes (discursively) from formal pragmatics >(validity relations that are subjective, intersubjective, and >objectivating) to an evolutionarity that is personal, cultural, and >social-systemic ("going" *really* from ontogeny to history). What I wanted to say is that I thought Habermas based the restoration of CT's normative basis on the connection between language and the reproduction of the human species. If I am misreading JH I would appreciate being put right on this rather fundamental point :-) If I am NOT misreading JH, then I am wondering whether JH locks himself into a foundationalist position here i.e the reproduction of the human species is a good thing etc Thanks again MattP _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005