>Bingo. "I enjoy." We don't necessarily communicate with
>one another as the means to reach an impartial decision,
>coordinate our actions within an unlimited communicative
>community and strive to keep western rationality alive. We
>communicate because using language is exciting.
HELLO-we did do this when you n me n kirsten were working together to create pulp culture. friendship was involved, which made it a diff exp than we might have had were we simply colleagues who'd met at a conference.
WHY? because we set out to get something accomplished. and this is tje difference: it's action oriented toward success. whereas our friendship isn't oriented toward success --do we have some goal we want to reach [i mean i know you want to get my skirt unzipped. heh see ya in the badly decorated vintage 70s mobile home, 'kay?]
NO we don't have a goal we want to reach, we're all friends and enjoy the friendship in and of itslef.. no kidding
>BTW - friendship has Aristotle written all over it
>(Nicomachean Ethics).
yeah, and didn't we figure that zizek inc were neo aristotelians....
>But he is claiming that communicative action leads to
>impartiality in moral decision making...
nope--least not in the way you're defining
>Lukes argues that Habermas's theory of com act is simply a
>souped up version of instrumental reason.
i was ref'g to an article about the diff between conventional ethics and sociology of morality. which friggin chuck ought to read, too, since he's wedded to some universalitic notion of ethics
>It does if we think the web page we've agreed to build is
>the best of all possible web pages...
but we don't and as i read hab in his latest stuff i don't think he's suggesting by any means that ppl sitting down to accomplish something is suposed to be akin to achieving, once and for all, the best of all possible worlds. clearly he can't believe this. i mean there is so much he's said contrary to that. anyway, let's talk suzie bright's latest, 'kay?
>ken
>
>
>