Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:39:27 EDT
Subject: Re: [HAB:] re: dialectical therapy


In a message dated 7/17/2004 9:59:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:

As far  as public life goes, *only* that thinking which can be
communicatively  organized can possibly have
significance for others.
Politics as the power of ideas often presents to us strategic orientations  
which have not been rationalized and which are part of a group's lifeworld or  
background practices but which also do not meet the validity criteria of TCA.  
This discussion is found in the rationality dispute with Winch concerning the 
 relativity of justice procedures, e.g. the Azande, and more currently, the  
Iraqis as noted in this week's Newsweek.  By raising the issue of  
consciousness or thinking in light of Habermas's effort to justify the  linguistic turn, 
the issue becomes one of validating all linguistic statements  and action 
performances and not necessarily intentions or thoughts.   However, I would argue 
that similar procedures would apply to consciousness if  someone wanted to 
validate their thought, but then some very serious problems  would arise related 
to irrationality.  Where language performances contain  the controllable 
illocutionary forces, thought is considerably more volatile: a  sending-receiving 
dynamic would be seriously remiss in identifying communicative  sources, and 
this problem would probably be deeper than linguistic problems in  reference and 
sense.
 
Fred Welfare







--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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