Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:37:34 EST
Subject: Re: [HAB:] re:  Naturalism


 
In a message dated 11/5/2004 5:35:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:

I’ve  believed that Habermas’s reading of Mead is problematic----but 
problematic for  his sense of individuation, not for his formal  pragmatics


I understand that the problem with Mead is his concept of the generalized  
other which is too cultural and not universal.  Habermas appeals to  universal 
right much as Kant would but the practical awareness of a generalized  other 
especially within institutional contexts is burdened with the perspectives  of  
an 'observing' leadership which is at times voluntary, at other  time 
emergent, and at other times, the actually authorized  'persons-in-charge.'  But none 
of these positions is necessarily granted  legitimacy without taking up an 
intersubjective position which appeals to  reaching agreement.  I think of Mead's 
perspective as saturated with a  contextual present while Habermas U 
principle is more evenly distributed between  reason and potentiality.  What I find 
lacking in both is a thoroughgoing  account of 'social selection' mechanisms 
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 ---