Subject: HAB: Re: Re: Bob Scheetz (re: this month's "samizdat")
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:47:53 -0500


Dierdre,
         ...really didn't expect any response, but much gratified
at your comprehending and pluck...especially the latter.  Still,
we all know the fbi is watching so...?
bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Deirdre Golash <dgolash-AT-american.edu>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:11 PM
Subject: HAB: Re: Bob Scheetz (re: this month's "samizdat")


> > --- bob scheetz <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com> wrote:
> >
> > >...would it be possible, in the ideal court of discourse ethics, to
> > entertain the righteousness of a 9/11 strategy?
> >
> > Would it be possible for you to interpret something in *terms of
> > Habermas's work* or to share your engagement with his work or foster
> > engagement?  Or is this just not possible for you?
> >
> > Show how your comment above is not about rationalizing pathological
> > violence.
>
> I think bob makes a valid and provocative point with respect to the
> possibility that some points of view may be excluded by the nature of the
> enterprise.  At the same time, these are points of view that we
desperately
> need to understand, whether or not we've ruled out the possibility that
> violence may sometimes be necessary.
>
> Besides, I rather prefer the slightly-off-topic rant to the endless and
> unilluminating very-much-on-topic exegesis.  Chacun a son gout.
>
> Deirdre Golash
>
>
>
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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