From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 20:09:16 GMT
Hi Matt
I definitely fall into the "spectatorial cynicism" -no actually 'spectorial
relecting but not doing much' category.
Your danger I suggest is to fall into the 'let's hang on to liberalism as
hard as we can as it is crushed' category,
you are more optimistic that your strategy is not doomed, I am more
optimistic that a better strategy
can be found. Perhaps you should take my wager that we better try and come
up with something better than
liberalism in case liberalism is not going to hack it. Try starting with Roy
Bhaskar.
I hope your right. It's been fun as usual. Funny how the public world seems
awful but
privately I just had a lovely day in the old city of York, saw some ruins, a
nice meal with my wife, bought a few books
and a nice second-hand Mozart CD featuring the lovely German bass Kurt Moll,
enjoying it now.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality
> David,
>
> David said:
> OK you've given me enough flexibility to accept your temporary right to
talk secular if you want to, problem is, as Rorty accepts, things are not
looking very good for liberalism. ... Can something good be achieved? I
think we may be in more trouble than hanging or to liberalism can handle,
because we are probably are going to be able to hang on to it. Your
thoughts...
>
> Matt:
> And you're the one that calls _me_ pessimistic.
>
> The deal with me and Rorty is that, yeah, things aren't looking so good
for liberalism, but we don't think it has anything to do with liberalism or
democracy, more to do with good, old-fashioned greed, sadism, etc. But
that's the case with every gov't set-up, isn't it? Well, we haven't heard a
_damn_ thing as to what other options we are supposed to use.
>
> Everything on your little list of things that you said isn't on the agenda
(or, as I would say, isn't getting enough attention) is perfectly within the
grasp of liberal democracies to do something about. And I can imagine us
doing something about all of them within our liberal parameters, using a
secular language. As far as I can tell, liberal democracy is still the way
to go.
>
> So, despite the world looking more and more like 1984, we haven't lost
hope, because hope is the only way to really enact change. Once you've lost
hope, you're one step closer to spectatorial cynicism, and that's just
useless.
>
> Here's to hope,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 27 2004 - 20:18:29 GMT