>>> kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca 08/06/01 01:30PM >>>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:18:42 -0400
From: Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com>
Subject: Re: Gramsci & Machiavelli (was Re: Ethical foundations of theleft)
> >The idealization of reason-giving with freedom, equality, autonomy,
> >fairness, etc. is not inherent in communicative processes everywhere at
> >all times.
kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca:
> Check the archives. If there isn't an anticipation of understanding, then
> we're not talking about communication. See, I just enacted an idealization.
> I anticipate that you'll understand what I just wrote, I can't help it -
> its structural, even if I'm lying.
Charles Brown:
> CB: There's a sense in which the proposition " communication is
> done with the purpose or anticipation of understanding" is quite
> trivial. Of course, communication is done trying to be understood.
> What is the more subtle or profound significance of this ? How is
> it not a truism ?
>I believe it is incorrect. Communication is often intended to decrease or eliminate understanding. Unless by accident or divinely given, communication must have arisen as a method of affecting the behavior of others, which will often be unrelated to the other's understanding. Even rather primitive organisms can be observed practicing deception.
KM: Insofar as deception does not involve understanding, in the sense of shared meaning and grammar, it is not communication (let's not extend the meaning of communication to include everything, eh?). Yes, communication can be used for instrumental means, but only insofar as communicative relations are prior to the instrumental of use language. Communicative action is primordial, in this sense.
)))))))
CB: I'm still in agreement with Ken's statement, but asking why isn't this obvious. ? You are saying that even a lie or misrepresentation requires that the meaning of the lie be understood. I agree.
I still don't feel informed of something new that I didn't know already when it is said that communication is done to be understood. If Habermas says this , I agree, but don't see how it is profound or a philosophical incite. Seems common sense , not philosophy.