>Hugh,
Hi Colin - the person you are replying to here is Dave Hugh-Jones, not me or
any other "Hugh" who might have contributed to this list
Cheers
Hugh Roberts
>
>
>>It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
>>specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
>>that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
>
>Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
>contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
>one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
>one does indeed have one.
>
>
>>This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
>>position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
>>legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
>>default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
>>around. How could it be otherwise?
>
>Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
>involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
>am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
>inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
>these things. Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
>story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well? Also, how can
>you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
>why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
>becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
>however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
>status-quoist.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
>
>
>Colin Wight
>Department of International Politics
>University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>Aberystwyth
>SY23 3DA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
hugh.roberts@xxxxxxxxx
Hi Colin - the person you are replying to here is Dave Hugh-Jones, not me or
any other "Hugh" who might have contributed to this list
Cheers
Hugh Roberts
>
>
>>It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
>>specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
>>that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
>
>Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
>contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
>one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
>one does indeed have one.
>
>
>>This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
>>position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
>>legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
>>default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
>>around. How could it be otherwise?
>
>Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
>involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
>am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
>inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
>these things. Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
>story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well? Also, how can
>you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
>why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
>becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
>however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
>status-quoist.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
>
>
>Colin Wight
>Department of International Politics
>University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>Aberystwyth
>SY23 3DA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
hugh.roberts@xxxxxxxxx