lbo-talk-digest V1 #4729

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>kelley wrote:
>>
>>  At 05:41 PM 8/11/01 -0700, Miles Jackson wrote:
>>
>>  >"there is no alternative"--man, you sound like somebody at a WTO meeting!
>>  >The long history of our existence on this planet has shown quite clearly
>>  >diverse social patterns and diverse linguistic and nonlinguistic
>>  >strategies for communication.  You're taking the patterns of interaction
>>  >in a specific social setting--a graduate philosophy seminar, more or
>>  >less--and then treating this language use (reason-giving, unforced
>>  >consensus, etc) as fundamental to all communication.  You need to
>>  >get out more, I guess: every day people in diverse cultures
>>  >contradict each of the supposed necessities you list above.  And
>>  >then if they don't talk like philosophers, well, they just don't
>>  >measure up to the Universal Standards for Communication.
>>
>>  you're still not understanding that it has nothing to do with a seminar.
>>  people give reasons in other cultures. Why doesn't it rain? The rain god
>>  must be unhappy. How was the earth created... yadda yadda.
>
>Kelley, you are playing with words, equating explanation with giving a
>reason. We are still in the realm of trivial tautology. The attempt to
>explain the world, the necessity to make sense of it (but not
>necessarily rational sense) is part of the source of both ideology and
>science. Communicating such explanations, sharing them, etc. is a quite
>separate process.
>
>Communication or Communicative Action (as Subjects of a scientific
>discipline) simply are of no particular interest. Communication presents
>technical (rhetorical, etc.) problems in specific contexts, and any
>general principles across contexts are simply truisms and of no
>particular intellectual interest.
>
>Carrol

Besides, it doesn't make sense to attempt to construct shared 
presuppositions of both superstition and science in order to defend 
science & other genres of argumentation under modernity.

Yoshie