> When we talk about morality in this culture we mean the
logical construction of rules.
No - I'm talking about the disjunction between the empirical / hermeneutic *is* and the speculative, utopian, phantastic *ought* to be.
> And then we add "values" or feelings to those rules.
Values are not separate from *objective* rules - despite what the positivists think. Karl Popper was wrong, simply and plainly, wrong. Science cannot vindicate itself as the gatekeeper of knowledge and leave the rest up to a democratic citizenship. Science and the uncovering of knowledge *IS* value-full - even if it can't be spelled out in logical rules and theorums.
> In Ken's statement, he expands morality in some sense to
be something that tells us to act as if the sky is blue, where
such a concept seems to me to be very hard to connect to
feelings or values otherwise. So Ken is not confining morality
to a domain that I would ordinarily not understand such things
within our U.S. culture.
I'm not working on the level of U.S. culture, as a matter of fact, I don't have much of a clue about U.S. culture other than what I see on TV. Anyway - feelings and values play into our perceptions and science, as a discourse, cannot meaningful separate values from facts without total self-alientation. The attempt to distinguish cognition from morality is nonsense - and yes, most of the funding in 'modern' 'western' 'universities' goes to empirical research because it 'appears' to be knowledge-full and meaning-empty. So you have me there. The money goes to the positivists. No Crit Lit department will ever receive $10M to do anything except, perhaps, rennovate.
> That doesn't mean he is wrong. I think he doesn't have a
material reason for saying this directly. He doesn't have the
science as it were to prove this, but it follows from a
connectionist view that indeed we can't separate feelings from
consciousness, and have to understand that we "act" as if the
sky is blue will include some part of feelings or values in that.
I'm not radically separating feelings from consciousness. I'm not even sure a split makes sense at all. What I am saying is that cognition isn't separate from morality. That's all.
> Doyle
> I would point out that this concept Ken is using seems to me
to not include though a sense of logic to constructing the
feeling the sky is blue. And I want to emphasize the main
thrust of morality in our culture is the association of logic to
feeling which is morality as in the rule "Thou shalt
not kill". So Ken has broken down the meaning of morality in
our culture in the above three statements.
No - I've MORALIZED culture - by saying that nothing escapes moral responsibility.
(snipped) (Snitgrrl can respond I guess)
> Doyle
> To conclude with my response to Ken, his thinking is at
times very close to my developing understanding. I find
acceptable how Ken uses the term morality here. The term
emphatic though does not get at what I think of as the basic
interconnection of things. In other words we may have a value
system that interpenetrates all our thoughts, but I can't see
how it is necessary to think of this as emphatic.
OK - give me a value-free piece of knowledge. Just one - a single piece of knowledge that is Meaning-less.
> I see this as being spirit "metaphor" like in the sense that
Ken has written about inverting Hegel. But I want to
emphasize that interconnectedness might have a more
material way of making this point which doesn't posit a spirit
apart from other aspects of consciousness.
> regards.
> Doyle Saylor
Spirit apart from consciousness? You've completely lost me.
I'm hegelian, not Hegelian (so perhaps I'm closer to schelling via marx).
ken