>Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:14:45 -0500
>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>Subject: Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4706
>
>kelley wrote:
> > so the whole thing about praxis is b.s. eh?
>
>CC: I agree with Timpanaro that all legitimate epistemological question
>belong to neuroscience, not
>philosophy.
So... you accept the propositional truth claims of Timpanaro. Interesting. And for those of us who are not neuroscientists... how to you propose to translate these findings into ordinary language (unless you are content simply to use the facts like a weapon? Dare I suggest philosophy as a discourse of justification and translation?
>Rhetoric, agitation, propaganda, and theory are legitimate topics of
>discussion. Communication in the abstract is not.
>Carrol
Dude, this is abstract. You must be philosophizing. To the flames then?
ken
>Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:48:20 -0700
>From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at home.com>
>Subject: Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4706
>
> > Neither in theory nor in practice is communciation a philosophical
> > problem. And it is only a practical problem in specific situations.
> > Theoretical studies of communication tend to replace _both_ theory
>and practice with endless detours into epistemology. I agree with
>Timpanaro that all legitimate epistemological question belong to neuroscience,
>not philosophy.
>=================
>Itself a philosophical position that cannot be confirmed or refuted
>via neuroscience.
> [...]
>There is no communication in the abstract.
>Ian
This dude has a point.
>Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:13:38 -0500
>From: / dave / <arouet at winternet.com>
>Subject: Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4706
>
>Carrol wrote:
>
> > Rhetoric, agitation, propaganda, and theory are legitimate topics of
> > discussion. Communication in the abstract is not.
>
>All communication is rhetorical.
Dude, not so fast... this means truth is limited to questions of taste. The problem being, that one must assume, a priori, that all questions of science, morality and law are inexorably fused without possible remedy. It is worth preserving a categorical distinction between 'discourse' and 'rhetoric' simply to permit basic differentiations between, say, good and evil.
>Every successful act of communication is a consummated act of seduction
>(of which agitation, propaganda, etc., are but subsets). An instance
>marked by what we think of as a "lack" of communication is simply a
>failed attempt at seduction.
/ dave /
Aha! I see that you are trying to seduce me. It won't work, silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Your wicked magic has no power here. Oswald Ducrot maintains a similar thesis... but I suspect the problem is that it lacks a properly communicative dimension, in other words: the thesis that successful communication is an act of seduction is semantic, not performative-grammatical. I'm not going to push too hard on this point, because on my non-Habermas days, I'd probably agree, except I'd put it like this: understanding is failed communication.
ken