> amadeus amadeus wrote:
>
> >I'm frankly suprised that folks are rejecting the
> >abstention from ascribing motives as a reasonable
> term
> >of debate. Can we remove ourselves from the
> situation
> >at hand and whatever axes we have to grind and ask
> >ourselves how we can ever really know someone's
> motive
> >in stating something or doing something? Apart from
> >clairvoyance, I really don't see how that's
> possible.
Doug:
> It's not possible for us to observe lots of things
> directly; we still
> think and talk about them. You observe people
> carefull, listen to
> the words they use carefully, and look for patterns.
> You'd have to
> have an awfully one-dimensional view of humanity if
> you didn't do
> that.
Response: Well these are really horses of a different color then. My assumption in joining the list was that a discussion of actual issues would be the priority, not an examination of how people talk and their patterns and personalities. If I wanted that I'd join freud-l. But seriously, are you saying that ascribing motives to messengers, an action which thusfar has amounted to accusations and self-defense, is to be privileged over an attempt (however flawed) at rational debate of actual activity and events? At the same time, would it be possible for folks to acknowledge their own "patterns" and subjectivities rather than speculate on those of others? It seems to me that as perspective of a given situation on the ground fades, these speculative personal attributions increase. Any ideas?
> But I'm not surprised that Carrol, who sees history
> as one ongoing
> accident and has no interest in agency, would take
> this position. Nor
> is this very surprising either:
I doubt anyone here would say that human agency has no consequence whatsoever. But maybe I'm wrong?
> Why is interest in human motivation banal and
> reactionary? People
> behave all kinds of different ways under different
> circumstances;
> faced with the same situation, some people might cry
> and some might
> kill; some might revolt, and some might conform.
> Isn't it interesting
> to you why that is, and how it matters for politics?
Oh, it's very _interesting_, there's no doubt about that. I saw the Gates in Central Park; those were very interesting, too. I just don't think debate can be narrowed to the politics of the individual-- I'd guess you wouldn't, either. I do think that groups play a more important role than individuals in politics. Little Billy's mom might have died of consumption, but that doesn't tell us why he later joins the Moonies, rather than a Marxist brigade, or just does nothing.
> Personalities
> like Stalin count for some nontrivial nonzero
> amount. Ronald Reagan
> too - I don't think modern history would have turned
> out exactly as
> it did if it weren't for his repackaging of the vile
> bitterness of
> American conservatism as something forward looking
> and even
> revolutionary.
I think we're in agreement about the nontrivial nonzero amount. As far as the alternate history bit, though, isn't this the precise reasoning used by many political assassins to justify their crimes, i.e. the mystification and endowment of authority? And yet political figures are routinely murdered, and we're still left with the same shit.
--adx
===== "Mary Poppins is alive and well in Argentina, she sends her regards." - Rod McKuen, The Mud Kids
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com