--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/1/01 11:25:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
> You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why"
> repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to demonstrate
> the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past
> all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that
> corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility
> of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the representationalist
> project. Rather than continue to search for a correspondence between the
>
There are two types of situations that we encounter in relation to the
rightness of our actions. In the first situation, our action (by that I mean
our intentional action)
either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our
representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or are
not in agreement.
In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the
law come under norms about which other people may disagree. (Some people
consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed
upon as laws can actually be law.) We might consider the situation to be
that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe preferred
ways of living life. Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions
are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the
law.
The tension often results in the context of freedom where people are free to
critisize others who are free to live their life as they choose, so long as
their actions are not violations of the law. Of course, the validity of the
law is at all times in question which is why law develops and changes...
claim and comment, argument and counterargument, legislative accord on new
laws, etc... By definition, all laws refer to public behavior; if a behavior
is illegal it is public behavior. But, the real tension begins within the
private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the
question, "How shall I live?" Each person's answer may or may not accord
with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.
Vunch
--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 2/1/01 11:25:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR>rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why"
<BR>repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to demonstrate
<BR>the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past
<BR>all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that
<BR>corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility
<BR>of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the representationalist
<BR>project. Rather than continue to search for a correspondence between the
<BR>real thing and your image of it, why not stop the search?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>There are two types of situations that we encounter in relation to the
<BR>rightness of our actions. In the first situation, our action (by that I mean
<BR>our intentional action)
<BR>either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our
<BR>representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or are
<BR>not in agreement.
<BR>
<BR>In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the
<BR>law come under norms about which other people may disagree. (Some people
<BR>consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed
<BR>upon as laws can actually be law.) We might consider the situation to be
<BR>that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe preferred
<BR>ways of living life. Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions
<BR>are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the
<BR>law.
<BR>
<BR>The tension often results in the context of freedom where people are free to
<BR>critisize others who are free to live their life as they choose, so long as
<BR>their actions are not violations of the law. Of course, the validity of the
<BR>law is at all times in question which is why law develops and changes...
<BR>claim and comment, argument and counterargument, legislative accord on new
<BR>laws, etc... By definition, all laws refer to public behavior; if a behavior
<BR>is illegal it is public behavior. But, the real tension begins within the
<BR>private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the
<BR>question, "How shall I live?" Each person's answer may or may not accord
<BR>with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.
<BR>
<BR>Vunch</FONT></HTML>
--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary--