jks
--- BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Ted writes:
>
> > As I've pointed out before, the concept of the
> "good" embodied in Marx's idea of the "universally
> developed individual" is inconsistent with imposing
> it on anyone. Its essence is the ethical idea of
> "mutual
> recognition," a relation completely free from
> domination and coercion. It can only be realized if
> individuals self-consciously desire it and are able
> to arrange their conditions of life, including their
> developmental conditions, in accordance with its
> requirements.
>
> To me the problem lies in the creation of self and
> other. In understanding that other is self and self
> is other and that both are in a constant state of
> interconnectedness, questions of dominance and
> coercion disappear. Since people are already
> involved in a relationship of dependent origination,
> the revolution that is needed is the recognition of
> this reality. To me Marx can be corrected by
> changing "mutual recognition" to "mutual
> interdependence/interbeing."
>
> > Its claims about "rational self-interest" are very
> different from Rawls's. It claims a rational person
> would wish to live creating and appropriating beauty
> and truth within relations of mutual recognition.
> Marx's ideal distribution rule, for instance, is
> designed to realize this end. It enables
> individuals to live lives of this kind.
>
> I am unfamiliar with Rawls (he is on my list), but
> where I see a problem is in the positing of the
> notion of a "rational person." It is true that
> every person has the capacity to be rational, but
> any decision made by a person is usually informed by
> rationality as well as affective/emotive
> needs/desires. I do not see how they can be
> separated.
>
> While I agree that creation is vital, trying to
> "appropriate" causes the problem of attachment. Why
> can't beauty and other goods be appreciated rather
> than appropriated? Again, I would maintain that
> when a person tries to appropriate it is an attempt
> on her part to reinforce a shaky sense of
> self-identity that she feels can be remedied through
> acquisition/consumption.
>
> As for mutual recognition, I view this as just a
> step away from Vietnamese thinker Thich Naht Hanh's
> notion of interbeing. Whereas mutual recognition is
> acknowledgement of a separate self equal to one's
> own, interbeing acknowledges that the divide between
> self and other is illusionary: other is self.
>
>
> > Even if all irrationality is the outcome of
> inadequate conditions of development, however, it
> isn't obvious how conditions can be changed in the
> way required.
>
> Well, I am not sure that irrationality is the
> outcome of inadequate conditions of development.
> For me such a belief goes back to Plato and his
> elevation of thinking over emotion and reinforced by
> Descartes and his misthinking. To me it is dubious
> to think that the elimination of inadequate
> conditions will eliminate irrationality.
>
> Irrationality is not the problem; neither is
> rationality. Both will take part in the shaping of
> desires, needs and actions. To me what is necessary
> is a framework through which the products of these
> processes are judged and implemented. The appeal to
> me of Buddhism is that it does not try to create
> good, but instead seeks to end suffering.
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/