Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:34:10 +0100
Subject: Re: HAB: liberal eugenics



Dear Bob and Matt and anyone else

An occasional reader of the postings of this list, this little cut-out
intrigued me also. Both the question about whether or not Habermas' ongoing
theoretical project is best considered essentially committed to what is often
labelled the "Kantian" position that morality somehow radically transcends
tradition, and the possibility of using the Luhmannian idea of autopoiesis to
clarify the structure of reason located at the center of this project has
inspired me very much. I have never succeeded in making the details stick when
trying to flesh out these ideas. I love Kant and Luhmann for producing what in
my views appear the most intuitively convincing theories of morality and
society. And I admire Habermas among other things for trying so hard to make a
constructive use of both - despite the fact that he pays homage to and
explicitly declares himself a follower of the former while always expressing a
deep unease and maintaing a sharp rhetorical edge against the latter. This
consteallation of symphaty and antipathy is often bolstered by readers of
Habermas who are not seriously interested in Luhmann. Ironically the frontlines
froze just about the time when both simultaneously made the concept of
communication the centerpiece of their theories abound 1980. It would be
absolutely wonderful if Habermas could be read or expanded upon so as to bridge
the gap between transcendental and autopietic theory. I know this is not
Habermas main interest of course. Is this anywhere near what Bob is up to, or
does he simply use the reference to the categorical imperative and to
autopoiesis as signposts placed ina landscape where neither Kant nor Luhmann
really belongs?

Hopefully,

Iver

At 09:30 05.11.01 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Bob,
>
>I am hesitant to write this so apologies in advance :-) I worry that I am
>missing pearls of wisdom because I can't decipher your *stream of
>consciousness* posts adequately enough.
>
>Eg.
>
>>His pessimism is relieved only by a kinda wistful pis aller on the species'
>>capacity for moral auto-poiesis. That perhaps, Woman can, beginning from
>>Kant's categorically moral  autotelic constitution of human dasein, create
>>a
>>new, universal-secular, ethos of the species. That is, it appears, only by
>>way of a moral-cultural rump, not a society; like the monks devotedly
>>tending the lamp of civilization thru the dark ages.
>>
>>...but, don't it seem the sub-text here is still after all not Reason, but,
>>Traditon?...that the text begs a continuation of Aristotle-St. Paul & co,
>>all the old forms of the auto-poetic cultural heritance of the West, not a
>>discarding?...and the q is still: how can you even think "ethical" without
>>a
>>tradition/history? ...indeed, the case of the brave new dark age, how can a
>>person be a person?
>
>
>That said; the problem is mine I realise. Is there any chance of you
>indulging me (and possibly others) by *boring* up some of your posts so I/we
>might be able to engage?
>
>Cheers
>
>MattP
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
>     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ph. D. Candidate/Research Assistant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senter for vitskapsteori
University of Bergen
Allégaten 32
N- 5020 Bergen
Norway
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: iver.orstavik-AT-svt.uib.no
Telephone: (+47) 55 582978/ 55 367763/ 90 833923
Web site: http://www.uib.no/svt/io.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML VERSION: