Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:06:17 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: Can the HAB List archive evolve?


i guess a "sociologist doing critical theory" who has no background in
"academic philosophy" would be uninterested in the "full range* of JH
works, but especially the philosophical character of JH's works." this
kind of distinction is specious given the interdisciplinary nature of
habermas's work (not to mention his writings on the public sphere, the
logic of the social sciences, the theory of communicative action v1-2,
writings on the nation state and democracy, and on and on). of course it
is your right to assume the position of lector with respect to the
"philosophical" habermas. i just don't feel you're a very good one.
moreover, my guess is that habermas would reject just the sort of
philosophical reduction you seem to desire (if his debate with gadamer
is a good indicator).

your posts are the main reason i lurk. 

suggestion for improvements: that you be more judicious in your
posting.

ol



>>> gary-AT-gedavis.com 03/08/02 04:42PM >>>
Are you a subscriber who:

-- Doesn't post to the list (or hasn't for a very long
time) because you're not especially interested in current
interactions? (I'm writing generally here, not having this
day of posting especially in mind, not that today isn't
worth focus--I don't know, I haven't been keeping up for
several days.)

-- Has a background in academic philosophy (looking at JH's
work this way, rather than basically as a sociologist doing
"critical theory" specifically or as an activist looking
for conceptual correlates to activism)?

-- Interested in the *full range* of JH works, but
especially the philosophical character of JH's works?

Then, let others (or at least me) know you're "here". I
believe that there are many tens of subscribers to this
list, yet few post. I think we have a dim sense of what
this "community" is (since so few post)

What would you, lurker, like to see this forum do or
become--or what would you like to do, if you believed it
was worth your time (in case your silence means cynicism; I
can't know why you subscribe silently). 

If one goes through the archive, it's obvious that finding
good material can be time-consuming, but it's *there* to be
found. But unorganized! A guide would be good; who's got
the time to benefit from the irregular Moments of
enlightening exchange? (Too bad there's no auto-indexing
software; the search feature doesn't work well, by the
way).

It's a very large archive, and there have been some
excellent contributions, 1995 to present; but also there is
much topic repetition, as fits key kinds of themes
returning "naturally" (also showing subscribers as perhaps
unaware of the archive or as having a spontaneous
relationship to the listserv, contrary to the interests of
a focused learner or scholar). What's the point of that
archive? What's your opinion of its "presence"?

If the good discussions in the archive were thematized and
catalogued into something useful for the student/scholar of
communicative interaction, would you be more likely to post
in the future (contributing to an evolving Conversation of
thematic foci)?

Enough said, maybe, for one posting. 

Please let me know what you think (privately, if you
prefer: <gary-AT-gedavis.com?)

But, to get more arcane....

=== Fantasy Querying of the Archive ==
What is the difference between online communication and
online discourse? How do major themes develop from
individual queries (or usually fail to develop)? How can
this be done more deliberatively? Is it impractical to
consider an online venue as a seminarial channel? (Is it
too much to ask of others' scarce time? Does this say
something important about this medium?) 

Should there be multiple lists: This "dialogal" one for
entering into JH's work well vs. another forum for pursuing
difficult, focused issues in some evolving discursive sense
for each key issue? Would it be good to work in a medium
that allows detachable files (papers in draft, extended
discussion archives as stand-alone documents, etc.)? 

Could the HAB list become a "body" of work(ing) topics that
can be seen to be evolving, as cognizance of past good
discussion is recommended and good new discussion is
recognized in an archival catalog? (Whose catalog? Multiple
catalogs? A discourse of thematology?) Has somebody got
grant money for working on this?

What is the importance--advantages and limits--of the
*textuality* of "dialogue" (an especially hermeneutical
issue) for deepening understandings of communication
(durability, "objectivity" of the text) or advancing
philosophical interests broadly, in a globally-accessible
medium? (Becoming like an online journal of philosophy, in
the Habermasian "spirit").

Can there develop a sense of the e-mail archive as a
potentially evolving Conversation or topography of evolving
themes that might branch into more specialized venues of
JH's work (as Frankfurt School list subscribers initiated a
Habermas list)? For example: [A] Habermas and the Frankfurt
School (Habermas up to, say, 1972); [B] Habermas and
(re)constructive human science; [C] Habermas and
contemporary issues in philosophy; [D] Habermas as public
intellectual.

Can a "good" archive organization serve as material for the
study of online discourse as such (standing between the
mode of a "live" seminar and a thematic discussion section
of a print journal). How can themes be advanced in this
medium, in some cumulative or progressive sense? What
inhibits this? What promotes this? Can we inhibit an ethic
of the mall (chat room) with an ethic of the seminar? Is
this improper for an unmoderated public list? Is a
moderated list a constructive option? Would YOU more likely
write for an online journal than a "discussion" list? What
might a good moderator ethic include?

Can good discursive interaction in this medium be usefully
standardized, to some degree, for the sake of advancing
understanding or critical efficacy or generalizable
learning, etc.? (To what degree is it good to take a
methodological approach to discourse? Is this fostered by
the listserv medium?) What might an editorial ethic for
subscribers--posting guidelines--include?

-------------------------

What *are* the key philosophical issues with Habermas's
work that an archive should preserve, going forward into
this century (looking at new interdisciplinary areas of
research)? How can this kind of question be served by this
archive (or a good future one) or not be served by any
archive? 

Does such questioning become less "Habermasian" and more
philosophical, in such a way that JH's work becomes *part*
of a Conversation in which his work can no longer be the
axis? What is that Conversation? Is it simply philosophy,
generally? I've asked this before: What is the discourse
that JH's work fosters which is other than specifically
JH's discourse? Better: What are the discourseS in which
JH's work is complementary? (JH doesn't own the discourses
he fosters). We must look to the world of the discourses to
gauge what's an advance and what's not, and to gauge where
the discourse *is* going vs. where it "should" be going; 
what's relative to [merely] JH's sense of the discourse vs
what most belongs to the discourse itself, apart from JH's
view of it.
---------------------------------

Where is the boundary (where are the boundaries) between a
German philosopher addressing a German audience, translated
into English (thereby overheard transculturally); and a
philosopher as such addressing any other (all others?), who
happens to write in German (heard first locally, in a
de-provincializing process)? What is the importance of
especially German philosophy in the global environment (as
a sharing of the especially German place of history with
audiences having very different histories)? What is truly
cosmopolitan or global or universalist in the philosopher's
work vs. What is historicist or properly Eurocentric?

-------------------------------------

So, here are lots of questions that I hope are useful.
Again, please let me know what you think (privately, if you
prefer: <gary-AT-gedavis.com>) 

Thanks,

Gary






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/ 


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


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