No offense taken kenneth. What I was reacting to and somewhat what the
original, somewhat sardonic, question about the imposs. of a perp. motion
machine, was about was catch phrases and BIG empty words. "Deontological
framework" is another phrase that is offered in the hope that this might
help us get our bearings by way of Kant or Rawls or some other big thinker
or claim. But really it is not a petulant stomping of my feet to complain
about terminology or the barrenness of "theories" but rather an expression
of frustration that there is always another way of putting or framing the
question, any question. One loses sight of the impulse from which discourse
arises which is simply to know, live and enact the truth of one's life --
or something like that.
But back to my original question, the reason I raised "ontic" considerations
(maybe with a touch of glibness) is that there does seem to be an underlying
assumption that we must trot out the arguments, at least one more time, if
we are to get at the interlocking nexus of problems issues and interests. I
suppose this "deontological framework" is meant to preempt the endless
cataloguing of interests and points of view but does it address the ontic
and existential conditions upon which or under which such questions are
raised? I think there was a reference to Kosovo in the original message.
Wasn't the point of the reference to say that we have ontic and existential
conditions within which theoretical questions are raised. Another way of
putting this is to ask: Do we really want a perpetual motion machine of
discourse? Or perhaps another way of saying it is: Isn't the endlessness of
our discussions a symptom of the nihilism that underlies the rationale that
we must work out our differences through force, war and conflict?
So I'll ask another question with a positive slant: Since there is no
closure in an absolute and temporal sense, what is the dynamic that we need
to put into place institutionally, politically and interpersonally such that
the "economy" of experience, both shared and individual, does not lead to
grief but fruition of understanding and peace?
>From: Kenneth Johnson <kenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:31:31 -0800
>
> >> >why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?
> >>
> >>"it's the economy, stupid."
> >>
> >>
> >Whatever "economy" means. (Another one of those big words that is more
> >evocative than informative.)
>====
>
>Mr. Daly, I hope you didn't take this comment personally, I typed it simply
>as a humorous non-sequitur and didn't realize until I hit the send key that
>it could also be considered a reasonable response to the question itself -
>minus the last word.
>
>It's an old Presidential election quote, I think made against Dan Quayle by
>I don't remember who.
>
>If it came across wrong, I apologize!!!!
>kenneth
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
original, somewhat sardonic, question about the imposs. of a perp. motion
machine, was about was catch phrases and BIG empty words. "Deontological
framework" is another phrase that is offered in the hope that this might
help us get our bearings by way of Kant or Rawls or some other big thinker
or claim. But really it is not a petulant stomping of my feet to complain
about terminology or the barrenness of "theories" but rather an expression
of frustration that there is always another way of putting or framing the
question, any question. One loses sight of the impulse from which discourse
arises which is simply to know, live and enact the truth of one's life --
or something like that.
But back to my original question, the reason I raised "ontic" considerations
(maybe with a touch of glibness) is that there does seem to be an underlying
assumption that we must trot out the arguments, at least one more time, if
we are to get at the interlocking nexus of problems issues and interests. I
suppose this "deontological framework" is meant to preempt the endless
cataloguing of interests and points of view but does it address the ontic
and existential conditions upon which or under which such questions are
raised? I think there was a reference to Kosovo in the original message.
Wasn't the point of the reference to say that we have ontic and existential
conditions within which theoretical questions are raised. Another way of
putting this is to ask: Do we really want a perpetual motion machine of
discourse? Or perhaps another way of saying it is: Isn't the endlessness of
our discussions a symptom of the nihilism that underlies the rationale that
we must work out our differences through force, war and conflict?
So I'll ask another question with a positive slant: Since there is no
closure in an absolute and temporal sense, what is the dynamic that we need
to put into place institutionally, politically and interpersonally such that
the "economy" of experience, both shared and individual, does not lead to
grief but fruition of understanding and peace?
>From: Kenneth Johnson <kenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:31:31 -0800
>
> >> >why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?
> >>
> >>"it's the economy, stupid."
> >>
> >>
> >Whatever "economy" means. (Another one of those big words that is more
> >evocative than informative.)
>====
>
>Mr. Daly, I hope you didn't take this comment personally, I typed it simply
>as a humorous non-sequitur and didn't realize until I hit the send key that
>it could also be considered a reasonable response to the question itself -
>minus the last word.
>
>It's an old Presidential election quote, I think made against Dan Quayle by
>I don't remember who.
>
>If it came across wrong, I apologize!!!!
>kenneth
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com