Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 23:05:37 -0400
From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com
Subject: Re: The Hermeneutics of Closed and Open Minds (was "Leo Casey...")


It was Gadamer in his study of interpretation, I believe, who pointed out
that there is no completely open mind, free of all prejudice. Every act of
interpretation, every reading of another's text or action, necessarily begins
within a hermeneutical circle, within a frame constructed by pre-judgments.
But not all 'prejudices' all equal -- some are productive and instructive,
others are restrictive and stultifying.

'Prejudices' so understood involve basic values -- something akin to the
Kantian a priori. One of my basic values -- and hence my 'prejudices' -- is
that my mind is 'closed' with respect to the use of mass murder for political
ends. It is simply morally and politically repugnant and indefensible, and I
am not in the slightest bit interested in discussions of its virtues with
those who would be its apologists. Stalinism is the name given to the
politics (and crimes) of the Soviet state in its period of mass murder of
millions of human beings, and to the politics of those who have supported and
defended that state. Today, those who deny the nature and practices of the
Stalinist state are little more than 'Red' holocaust revisionists, and those
who would explain away its crimes in one or another fashion are 'Red'
versions of Nolte and the German 'conservative historians' who would
rationalize the Nazi terror as a response to the 'Soviet threat'. While
analyses of the causes of Stalinism may be complex and admit many different
views, there is nothing remotely complicated about the moral and political
nature of Stalinism itself.

My prejudice with regard to Stalinism appears to offend Doug, for whom an
open mind concerning this topic is important. When such fundamental values
are in conflict, there is little to be gained by conversation. Cloak it up as
you will, condemn those who insist upon stating the bald truth here as
McCarthyites if you want, but the historical (moral-political) character of
Stalinism -- both in the Soviet state and in the sycophantic Communist
Parties from around the world which were dependent upon that state -- is a
closed issue for those who place any value on the dignity of human life, on
democratic norms, and so on.

Now, interestingly enough, for someone so open-minded with respect to the
'complexities' of Stalinism, Doug is fully prepared to defend a 'closed mind'
with respect to radical democracy. For some reason not entirely clear but
overwhelmingly evident by the terms of his rhetoric, radical democracy has
become a bete noire for him. He hasn't even read Laclau and Mouffe, but he
knows that their argument is complete nonsense. (As a matter of faith?) And
because I have identified myself with this politics, Leo baiting has become a
sideline sport. And if the demands of my life keep me from matching his
frenetic rate of posting, he makes sure to include constant provocations
concerning the empty  


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

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