Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri May 1 11:34:59 EDT 1998
Article: 12129 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 1 May 1998 11:34:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <6icq26$1ae@panix.com>
References: <35490FE2.18EF81DA@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <35490FE2.18EF81DA@msmisp.com> Carl Jahnes writes:
>How does the limited constitutional republic, as a 'form', inspire to
>conservation and investment?
A lot of old notions about government can be explained on these
grounds, for example that suffrage should be limited to those with a
stake in the country, that it's better to choose officials from
established families than from among upstarts, that it's better to rely
on agricultural interests than on commercial or worse speculative
financial interests.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Sleep lingers all our lifetime about our eyes, as night hovers all day
in the boughs of the fir-tree." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat May 2 20:01:12 EDT 1998
Article: 12137 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Neocon suffering
Date: 2 May 1998 19:53:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <6igbli$ig9@panix.com>
References: <1d7qbt8.1lhv84faxg12N@deepblue0.salamander.com> <6hdeii$dhi@panix.com> <1d7tub9.jslybu1qjijv5N@deepblue5.salamander.com> <6higuo$ne8@panix.com> <35474f15.5090727@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <35474f15.5090727@news.srv.ualberta.ca> tasquith@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) writes:
>>all persons are equally persons and all desires equally desires
>I am not sure that all desire equally is necessarily true.
Not what I said. Ideal liberalism doesn't demand that desires any more
than individuals be equally strong to be worthy of equal consideration.
It doesn't want to make judgements of relative worthiness at all.
Hence the aspiration toward purely formal criteria.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Sleep lingers all our lifetime about our eyes, as night hovers all day
in the boughs of the fir-tree." (Emerson)
From jk Fri May 1 07:21:16 1998
Subject: Re: *ED* What's Really Wrong With Public Schools?
To: C
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 07:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 947
Status: RO
> According to the Bible (see Romans 13:4), the state has an extremely
> limited function, which may be summed up in two points: punishing
> criminals (as defined by God’s law) and protecting the law-abiding.
> That’s it. God has appointed civil rulers as His ministers, and their
> responsibility is to administer His laws.
I don't like socialism either, and it seems to me a vast bureaucratic
system for raising children, which is what public schools are all but
certain to amount to today, is a bad thing. I doubt though that that's
the right interpretation of Romans 13:4. Paul after all was talking
about the Roman state, which did a lot of things other than enforce
God's law, for example provide _panem et circenses_ and crucify the
occasional saint or savior.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Sleep lingers all our lifetime about our eyes, as night hovers all day
in the boughs of the fir-tree." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon May 11 09:04:18 EDT 1998
Article: 12180 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 11 May 1998 08:16:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <6j6q71$i34@panix.com>
References: <35565E57.5C752102@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <35565E57.5C752102@msmisp.com> Carl Jahnes writes:
>Douglas shows that these so-called radicals simply constructed and
>surrounded themselves with symbolic forms which helped them to conform
>more perfectly to the stultifying machine/bureaucratic culture of
>liberalism which they had sought to break free of with hippiedom, or
>new leftism.
My basic view of the 60s is that the Universal Managerial Order by
abolishing serious moral demands in favor of technical considerations
had induced childishness, which the 60s acted out. The childishness of
course was grounds for further extension of the UMO. If life for each
of us is a matter of making mud pies the practical consequence is that
a mechanical Mommy grows up to look out after us. The problems start
in earnest when Mommy runs out of money, grows ill-tempered and
unreliable, starts hitting the bottle, and takes up with a flashy
boyfriend who promises her a good time but beats her.
>It is interesting to think about how these visual symbols have almost
>become invisible to modern man
Today everything important must be invisible. None of it's there you
know. Liberalism insists on the abolition of everything except the
technical and the principle of equal satisfaction of wills, so politics
becomes invisible. Its ruling class claims not to exist. Training 5th
graders in the use of condoms is put forward as an instance of "keeping
government out of our bedrooms" and "respect for diverse cultural and
moral views" because its specific moral content has somehow become
invisible to those enforcing it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From jk Mon Apr 20 17:51:03 1998
Subject: Campaign against Patrick Harrington
To: remote-printer.fussey@441813318875.iddd.tpc.int
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2720
Status: RO
Dear Vice Chancellor Fussey:
I note from an article in The Independent, confirmed by personal
contacts, that attempts are continuing to have Patrick Harrington
expelled from his post-graduate course at Greenwich University solely on
grounds of his current affiliation with Third Way and his connection
years ago with National Front.
I certainly hope you will continue to resist such attempts. To fulfill
its mission a university must allow a great deal of scope to variations
of opinion on matters of public concern. In addition, the issues raised
seem to be diversity and equal opportunity. An institution emphasizing
such things must for the sake of its own integrity allow its members a
great deal of freedom with regard to outside associations and
activities. Few things are absolute, and perhaps in some cases the
expression of opinion can violate academic obligations, but nothing of
the sort seems to have been alleged. So far as I can tell, the
situation is one of simple persecution on grounds of political views
that have no connection with Mr. Harrington's academic or future
professional field.
If you have not done so already, I urge you to learn something about
Third Way. An easy way to do so would be to visit their website at
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~thirdway/. My own contacts with the
organization are rather minor; I have corresponded with Mr. Harrington
occasionally, I met him once when he visited the United States, and I am
acquainted with Rabbi Mayer Schiller, an active participant in Third Way
who lives not far from me. You must form your own judgement, but the
general spirit of the organization, although not politically correct,
seems to me thoughtful and far from bigoted or antisocial. That
impression is confirmed by my personal impression of those involved in
the organization.
I hope you don't mind getting a note from a foreigner on this matter;
others with no direct interest have gotten involved and so I thought I
could do so as well. I do care that justice is done because I know Mr.
Harrington and some of his associates, because the world is always
shrinking, and because as a lawyer I care what happens in the country to
which we in America trace our law and government and our tradition of
individual rights.
Thank you for your consideration.
James Kalb
From jk Mon May 11 08:50:52 1998
Subject: The 60s
To: sch
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4514
Status: RO
On the radio discussion yesterday:
An aspect of the problem I tried to touch on at the end of our
discussion is the view of social order as something foreign to us, a
necessity grudgingly conceded which we'd be happier without because our
real nature is following impulse rather than participating in objective
reality that includes other people. It seems to me the 60s stand for
that view, which is the view infants seem to hold. I agree with your
guest that the parents of the 60s generation had laid the groundwork.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From jk Mon May 11 21:58:53 1998
Subject: Re: The 60s
To: sch
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1426
Status: RO
> The stuff about childishness and conformity strikes me as being
> at best a half truth, a way of reducing the sixties counterculture to
> its least worthy manifestations, and thus avoiding confrontation with
> those aspects of that movement that were most powerful, most
> spiritually alive, and most grounded in some important parts of human
> reality.
It was a complaint rather than a discussion, it's true. I just passed
it on because it seemed interesting that it should pop up the day after
our discussion.
I should mention that the focus of the large scale discussion of which
the extracts were a snippet hasn't at all been the 60s but has been far
more what I think the 60s resulted from, rebelled against, and
contributed to, the continuing construction of a universal spiritually
sterile managerial order, whose highest goods are comfort, safety, and
prudent satisfaction of impulse. The severest criticisms in the
discussion I quoted were of the degenerate representatives of the
traditional order rather than of the rebels.
> How was the conversation from your point of view?
It always seems that much more time would be needed to develop the
points. Still I enjoyed it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From jk Tue May 12 06:53:37 1998
Subject: Re: The Antifeminist Papers
To: jr
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 06:53:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1248
Status: RO
> Thank you for site. Other resources you might find useful include
> Freudian psychology and feminist tracts themselves.
Interesting idea. I've read a fair number of feminist writings, and
the great majority were embarassingly incompetent. The writers seemed
to have no clear idea of what they wanted to say, or how to say it.
Some of them actually went into Freudian theories, which were
interesting but didn't at all help their cause.
Some were better than others. Andrea Dworkin writes clearly and
forcefully, and has a powerful mind. Too bad she's insane. Some
things written directly about personal experience without theorization
were good, for example Ingrid Bengis' _Combat in the Erogenous Zone_
and Lessing's _Golden Notebook_, if that counts as feminist.
A basic problem is that writing directly about particular feminist
writings, let alone whole classes of them, would take more time and
effort than I want to spend now. Also I would have to reread the
stuff. Definitely a thought though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue May 12 07:19:41 EDT 1998
Article: 12187 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 12 May 1998 07:18:04 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <6j9b5c$lue@panix.com>
References: <35578AF9.C27FE89F@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <35578AF9.C27FE89F@msmisp.com> Carl Jahnes writes:
>If the "childishness was grounds for further extension...", do we have
>conspiracy theory taking over here? What causes the UMO to be seen as
>a universal good in the first place?
No conscious conspiracy, although presumably some people who favored
what was going on also understood it. My point was that if people act
childishly there are apparent good grounds for treating them like
children.
The UMO seems like a universal good because if you abolish God and
deify Man then the universal good becomes whatever all or almost all
men in fact agree on as goods -- money, everyday comfort, security,
doing what you feel like doing, and so on, and the ultimate ethical
task is the construction of an order that in fact secures those goods.
>Do you really feel this abolishment of universal moral demands is
>conscious?
I think people mostly avert their eyes from what they are doing.
>the Tower of Babel metaphor.
Certainly a penetrating metaphor. If man tries to make himself God and
thus become the source of meaning it turns out that there is no
sufficient common meaning to ground society.
>Again, to say it "must be invisible" revealls a belief of conscious
>intent.
No, an internal necessity of a tendency of thought. Fully
self-conscious liberalism is I think impossible, so to exist liberalism
must hide its own nature from itself.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From Jim Kalb
Message-ID: <4a7c9b01.35583314@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 07:31:31 EDT
To: jk@panix.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: BB
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_894972691_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120
Status: RO
Re: Socialism and the new religion
On May 12, 1998 at 06:27:17 Jim Kalb wrote:
-->Does anyone else see a connection between socialism and the new religi
-->on?
Both I think have to do with the view that the world is what we make of
i t, that there is no preordained reality, independent of what we
think, wa nt or do, to which we must submit.
Also, both support the abandonment of traditional moral standards. A
func tion of traditional sexual morality for example is to support
family stab ility and loyalty. If family is to be replaced by a more
comprehensive un iform, and therefore "juster," principle of social
organization, for exam ple the universal therapeutic antidiscriminatory
welfare state, then trad itional sexual morals lose their function and
in fact become immoral beca use they support an unjust superseded form
of social organization.
Both socialism and the new religion favor "emancipation," understood as
a n all-embracing reordering of society so that each gets to the
maximum eq ual extent possible whatever it is that he thinks good. Man
becomes the n ew God, and human desires the source and standard of
right and wrong.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed May 13 07:48:38 EDT 1998
Article: 12197 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 13 May 1998 07:36:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6jc0j9$p6f@panix.com>
References: <1d8urfz.1c75jh8nc7htsN@deepblue9.salamander.com> <3557835B.20D82662@msmisp.com> <1d8wmbt.jprdl71rol10mN@deepblue6.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>How many have believed in the Incarnation as a metaphysical reality?
>Today: I suspect very few.
How many believe Christ is God? Lots, I would say.
>Granted that a civilization needs fundamental myths, need they be
>true? As long as enough people "believe" in them, even if they don't
>BELIEVE.
People at bottom think of things in one way or another, and whatever
that way is would I suppose be the fundamental myth they live by.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed May 13 07:48:39 EDT 1998
Article: 12198 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 13 May 1998 07:46:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <6jc175$pgb@panix.com>
References: <35578AF9.C27FE89F@msmisp.com> <6j9b5c$lue@panix.com> <3558FBE4.2F2D@gstis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
FELIX writes:
>why is "God" necessary per se? It seems to me that any set of
>definitions of the good that is agreed upon by the general populace is
>a sufficient replacement. That these common goods are arrived at by
>reason rather than faith does not make them any less meaningful.
And how are the general populace to look upon their definitions? It
seems to me that if they look upon them as something they've simply
agreed on that gets them nowhere. After all, the point of conceptions
of the Good is that they precede and provide a standard for decisions,
agreements and actions. You want to make "the good" depend on a common
will and understanding in the people, but I don't see why any such thing
should exist before they have a common recognition of what is good and
evil.
A necessary function of the conception of the good is to motivate
sacrifice, without which no society can exist. It's entirely unclear to
me how mere arbitrary agreement, understood as such, can motivate
sacrifice. Why not drop out of the agreement if it looks like it's
going to cost you something serious?
If good and evil are useless when thought to exist by convention they
must be understood to exist by nature. But good and evil seem to have
to do with purpose; to attribute them to nature seems to attribute
purpose to nature. The shortest way to make sense of the situation is
through the conception of God. If you want to avoid that conception I
think you'll end up saying the same things in more words. So why be
squeamish?
>Common meaning does not require revealed truth, just commonly accepted
>truth. And it doesn't have to be all that common as long as it is
>shared among the elites.
Common meaning requires truth common to all that precedes all particular
truths and meanings. Such fundamental truth cannot be demonstrated, nor
(as discussed above) can it be understood as true by convention, so it
must be understood as self-evident or revealed.
On fundamental issues like this an appeal to a law-giving elite gets you
nowhere, by the way, since the differences among men don't go that deep.
There are no supermen; the elite considered internally is simply another
populace, so its coherence must also depend on acceptance of precedent
goods and truths or at least things understood to be so.
Actually, I'd go farther and say that considered internally even a
single man is a sort of populace, a chaos of thoughts, impulses,
sensations, possible interpretations, whatever. So even coherent
individuality turns out to depend on acceptance of truths and meanings
implicit in the world itself, and thus in effect on acceptance of God.
We can't pull ourselves into being by our bootstraps. To think at all
God is as necessary to us as say causality or the general reliability of
memory or the hypothesis that there exist things other than
first-person present-tense subjective experience.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 14 05:19:42 EDT 1998
Article: 12208 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 14 May 1998 04:48:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <6jeb4o$ih9@panix.com>
References: <3555223D.2595BFE1@msmisp.com> <895125734snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <895125734snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>> There is no such thing as a "value-free fact".
>As Richard Dawkins has memorably put it, 'Show me a cultural
>relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite.'
You seem to assume that to talk of values is to talk of things that by
their nature are culturally relative. I doubt Mr. Jahnes would agree.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 14 13:16:04 EDT 1998
Article: 12211 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 14 May 1998 13:05:01 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <6jf87t$9sv@panix.com>
References: <35578AF9.C27FE89F@msmisp.com> <6j9b5c$lue@panix.com> <3558FBE4.2F2D@gstis.net> <355AC672.495C8EFC@xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <355AC672.495C8EFC@xs4all.nl> vtnet writes:
>On the other hand, if some text is conceived of as revelation, that
>this eternal and last 'word of God', starts to function in same
>apologetic manner because the rulers may dictate their
>interpretations.
>Jim Kalb seems to justifies the need for religion primarily on the later
>ground as he stresses the need for sacrifice.
My argument wasn't so involved. "Sacrifice" simply means giving up
one's own advantage for the sake of others or some general principle.
I take it every society must be based on a common understanding that
justifies sacrifice. My point was that such an understanding must hold
that moral obligation is natural rather than conventional, and to
accept moral obligation as valid by nature is already to commit
oneselve to a view that is hard to make sense of apart from religion,
that is apart from a view that understands the world as intentional.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 14 13:16:04 EDT 1998
Article: 12212 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 14 May 1998 13:14:01 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <6jf8op$b00@panix.com>
References: <35512026.CFDB31B5@msmisp.com> <3554C69C.8146899A@net66.com> <894835960snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <35565E57.5C752102@msmisp.com> <1d8urfz.1c75jh8nc7htsN@deepblue9.salamander.com> <3557835B.20D82662@msmisp.com> <1d8wmbt.jprdl71rol10mN@deepblue6.salamander.com> <6jc0j9$p6f@panix.com> <1d8yh77.wd55a1jr5ytcN@deepblue15.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <1d8yh77.wd55a1jr5ytcN@deepblue15.salamander.com> wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>> How many believe Christ is God? Lots, I would say.
>I wonder what they mean by that?
The usual attributes -- omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, etc.
>What about those who serve even though they don't believe? Can
>fundamental myths be sustained by the patronage of those who find them
>useful or pretty, but unbelievable?
In the same way I suppose that modern natural science can be carried on
to some extent by those who think it's a good way to make a living, or
a stock of impressive phrases to say or tricks to perform in particular
settings, but have no real understanding or commitment to it. Science
can survive and even be aided by a certain number of such people, and
even do OK if a majority of those who are obviously hangers-on are like
that. If that's the dominant view of those at the center of the
scientific enterprise though modern science would go the way the
Anglican Church.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 14 20:07:50 EDT 1998
Article: 12215 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 14 May 1998 20:06:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <6jg0u9$8as@panix.com>
References: <35578AF9.C27FE89F@msmisp.com> <6j9b5c$lue@panix.com> <3558FBE4.2F2D@gstis.net> <355AC672.495C8EFC@xs4all.nl> <6jf87t$9sv@panix.com> <355B6F9B.9492A8C3@xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Status: RO
In <355B6F9B.9492A8C3@xs4all.nl> vtnet writes:
>"... by the way, since the differences among men don't go that deep.
>There are no supermen; the elite considered internally is simply another
>populace, so its coherence must also depend on acceptance of precedent
>goods and truths or at least things understood to be so."
>While I agree that one should be a little careful with a term like
>'superman' (ubermensch) because of the Nazi interpretation of this
>otherwise perfectly rational Nietzschian term, your claim that there
>is no difference between the average member of the elite and the rest
>of the populace
The discussion related to absolutely fundamental issues -- the nature
of reality, and the connection of that nature to the good life for man.
My point was that as to those fundamental issues men are alike.
My specific objection was to the Nietzschian conception, which I find
mere fantasy. While there are important differences among men, what
they have in common is in the end more important. That we are men
characterizes us more deeply than that we are men of this kind or that.
In particular, there are no men who posit or create values. There is
one moral world common to all. That world is no perfect monolith but
it has a basic unity.
>Of course, when he wrote this in 1840, the principles of
>specialization where only just emerging: Tocqueville in no way implied
>that the old forms of 'aristocracy' would do better, but simply that
>the rule by the people was an impossibility under any system.
The Roman Catholic Church had been around for quite some time. It was
not an aristocratic organization (it was not in principle based on
family), and Tocqueville likely viewed it as more the custodian of
ultimate principles than the aristocracy. Modern specialists and
experts are of course mere bureaucratic functionaries with no more
moral authority than the system they represent.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat May 16 04:33:17 EDT 1998
Article: 12226 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 16 May 1998 04:29:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <6jjiq6$5uj@panix.com>
References: <355B6F9B.9492A8C3@xs4all.nl> <6jg0u9$8as@panix.com> <355CA1DD.CA61AF77@xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
vtnet writes:
>ever more materialistic satisfaction (the 'good life')
Don't understand. The good life is not materialistic satisfaction. It
is simply whatever life is good.
>the claim implied is that it is impossible to lay claim on moral
>superiority in any meaningful sense, and that the superior man
>therefore makes a bold attempt to formulate his own moral imperative
My point is that bold attempts to formulate one's own moral imperative
out of nothing, like other bootstrap operations, don't work. Also, it's
not convincing to say that the superman's superness is not moral
superiority. It seems clear that one who creates moral imperatives is
better than one who gets them from someone else. That's the point that
distinguishes God from man, and Nietzsche's superman from other people.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat May 16 04:40:16 EDT 1998
Article: 12227 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 16 May 1998 04:33:13 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <6jjj09$66s@panix.com>
References: <895125734snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6jeb4o$ih9@panix.com> <895267390snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
rafael cardenas writes:
>if there is such a thing as objective truth, then facts are facts,
>whether or not values are also objective.
And if both truth and values are objective, then knowledge of facts
might depend on recognition of goods and still be objective. For
example, it might be impossible to know things without believing that
truth is good and so worth bothering with. Or existence might be a
good, so fully to recognize a truth might include recognition of its
goodness.
>There is no point in making the claim that Carl was making unless one is
>arguing from a cultural-relative position.
There are zillions of possible points. Are you sure you've considered
all of them? For example, one might want to say that the existence of
anything whatever requires a creator God, because existence is a
perfection and God is the only sufficient explanation for perfection.
If one wanted to make such an argument one might well say something
like "no fact is value-free."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat May 16 04:40:17 EDT 1998
Article: 12228 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 16 May 1998 04:38:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <6jjjab$799@panix.com>
References: <355AC672.495C8EFC@xs4all.nl> <6jf87t$9sv@panix.com> <895268000snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
rafael cardenas writes:
>Matt Ridley's Origins of Virtue makes a Darwinistic (and by
>implication irreligious) argument for the naturalness of morality.
Haven't read it, but I'm not sure how there could be a Darwinistic
argument for the binding nature of morality. There could be a
Darwinistic argument for why it feels binding, but that's something
different. If you believe morality actually *is* binding you'll
distinguish the two.
>The idea that everything has a natural end which is not necessarily
>the result of divine purpose (though of course to A. himself the end
>of the world as a whole was God) is alien not only to modern
>post-enlightenment thinking but to Christians as well, but it is not
>intrinsically absurd and seems to have been quite common in antiquity.
The issue seems to me closely related to the issue whether polytheism
makes sense. Polytheism was of course quite common in antiquity as
well. Can the world have multiple final ends that are just hanging
there, not forming an overall system? Or if the final ends do form a
system, is the overall systemic unity a sign of what's most real in the
world or is it perhaps a quality abstracted by our own minds from the
particular things that concretely exist? We all know how antiquity
ended up on the point.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From jk Wed May 13 15:37:18 1998
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
To: st
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1026
Status: RO
>
> Hey, Jim. Something must be missing from this sentence:
>
> "To think at all [about?] God is as necessary to us as say causality or
> the general reliability of memory or the hypothesis that there exist
> things other than first-person present-tense subjective experience."
I could equally have said:
"For us to think at all, we need to presume God no less than for
example causality or the general reliability of memory or the
hypothesis that there exist things other than first-person
present-tense subjective experience."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From jk Sun May 17 05:28:47 1998
Subject: Re: question on conservatism
To: Ci
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 05:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1391
Status: RO
> What would you define as the elements in the conservatism
> theory(whether pluralist or class based, or both) of political power?
I don't know of a single well-defined theory, but tendencies can be
discerned. Edmund Burke thought of power as something found in all
political societies. A major function of the system of traditions,
understandings and institutions which it was the point of his
conservatism to defend was to limit power and make it civil and
intelligent. Confucius had a similar view of the function of his
teaching -- how to make power and its exercise part of the system of
civilized culture rather than a brute force guided by the mere desire
of the strongest.
So I suppose the theory is that power is always present in society at
least as a brute force, that a basic political problem is how to get it
to protect rather than destroy and degrade the good order of society,
and that the answer is to integrate power and its exercise with other
cultural institutions, especially the fundamental institutions that
have a hold on men's sense of who they are -- ritual, religion, family
life, and so on.
Does that answer your question?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun May 17 21:01:01 EDT 1998
Article: 12237 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 17 May 1998 20:57:31 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <6jo11r$k1c@panix.com>
References: <355CA1DD.CA61AF77@xs4all.nl> <6jjiq6$5uj@panix.com> <355EEEBC.B63642EC@xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
vtnet writes:
> > The good life is not materialistic satisfaction. It is simply
> > whatever life is good.
>
> Which can be different for different people.
Water is good for a thirsty man and sleep for a tired man. While the
two are quite different, it seems they have something important in
common that justifies lumping them together as both "good."
> from a teleological perspective, the superman does not really create
> but merely (re)formulate. A scientist that formulates some relation
> doesn't need to claim superiority in any way, because he doen't cliam
> to be the creator of the relation.
Is that Nietzsche's view, that what is good is already good before the
superman comes along, and all the superman does is prepare a better
formulation of moral truths that are the same for all men, just as say
atomic weights are the same for all men, and do not depend on him?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun May 17 21:04:10 EDT 1998
Article: 12238 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 17 May 1998 21:00:53 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <6jo185$k8e@panix.com>
References: <3558FBE4.2F2D@gstis.net> <6jc175$pgb@panix.com> <6jneo9$g4b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
felix@gstis.net writes:
> People do have an many innate conceptions of what is good, especially
> when it comes to the care and rearing of the young. These instincts
> are the result of evolutionary forces not of revelation.
Everything whatever that men do can perhaps be explained by reference to
the laws of physics, initial conditions at the time of the Big Bang, and
the consequent history of the physical universe including evolution, all
of which give rise to innate conceptions and also various modifications
or idiosyncrasies. If such considerations equally explain all actions,
though, what possible relevance can they have to choosing which action
to perform?
> The propositions upon which the United States was founded are
> certainly considered to be "arbitrary" by many with your perspective
> and yet thousands were willing to sacrifice for the concept of the
> Union.
Did those who were so willing think of them as arbitrary? Of their
sacrifice as a simple consequence of universal physical laws and
processes that would equally have explained treason if that had been
their choice instead?
> > But good and evil seem to have to do with purpose; to attribute
> > them to nature seems to attribute purpose to nature. The shortest
> > way to make sense of the situation is through the conception of
> > God.
>
> With that broad a definition of God you could probably define every
> awake person as a "believer".
Not at all. Popularizers of Darwinism teach the contrary, and they
seem to speak for current orthodoxy. Nor is it silly for them to
insist on the point. Once you start attributing purpose to nature it
seems to me you've taken a turn that will affect your further
understanding of the world profoundly. The next question is whether
God does particular things or simply expresses his will through
universal law. Once you've accepted purpose as the explanation of
nature the grounds for insisting on uniform law weaken decisively. You
don't need universal law any more for the universe to be
comprehensible, so universal law stops being a demand of reason. And
if universal law gives way to particular action then revelation can not
be far behind.
> > We can't pull ourselves into being by our bootstraps.
>
> But we must.
Why think our incapacity gives way to our needs?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun May 17 21:04:11 EDT 1998
Article: 12239 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Monarchy and MaCartneyism
Date: 17 May 1998 21:02:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <6jo1b2$kd4@panix.com>
References: <895268000snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <6jjjab$799@panix.com> <895354709snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
> One suspects that the triumph of monotheism was related to the triumph
> of a universal secular monarchy, and the hierarchical schemes were
> related psychologically to the increasingly elaborate hierarchy of ranks
> in the late Empire.
These are interesting issues, but rather complicated. Ancient Hebrew
monotheism was associated originally with a stateless society. See I
Samuel, 8. European monotheism gave rise to a long-lived system of
independent states within a single civilization. In China the triumph
of a universal secular monarchy didn't lead to monotheism but in the
upper classes to a form of Confucianism tending toward atheism and in
the lower classes to gross superstition and low polytheism. Confucius
himself, living at a time when a loose feudal empire had fallen into
radical disorder, had a more robust understanding of Heaven as a
universal providential force that controlled history, sometimes through
particular actions.
In any case one might ask whether Hegel or Marx had it right. Does
consciousness give rise to concrete institutions, or is it the reverse?
In the case of Islam it seems clear monotheism came first and universal
empire was a consequence.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue May 19 12:16:31 EDT 1998
Article: 12248 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Planning
Date: 19 May 1998 12:16:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <6jsb8h$92i@panix.com>
References: <1d97p3u.1dv8lz67pm8w0N@deepblue1.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
Status: RO
wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
> [...] the Roman aqueducts; the attack on Jim Crow laws in the
> American South; St. Petersburg; the Erie Canal; the Manhattan
> Project; the Interstate Highway System; FDR's reshaping of the
> American economy for WWII; Haussmann's redisign of Paris;
> Washington DC (and the Washington Metro); the nuclear submarine;
> the eradication of yellow fever, cholera, and polio; Century
> City; even the assault on air-pollution [...]
These are mostly large engineering projects and the like (eradication
of particular infectuous diseases, organizing resources for a
particular short-term purpose, particular legal changes enforced by a
superior jurisdiction). Such things are certainly possible, and
sometimes work as planned. Their effects and ultimate usefulness are
harder to predict, because that depends on the general system of human
life, which *can't* be planned.
The Erie Canal wasn't useful for very long. Washington D.C. seems to
me a failure as a city -- it's the Federal government, horrible office
buildings, and a few pretty neighborhoods like Georgetown kept afloat
by the flood of tax and lobbyist money, and the rest (most of the city)
is slums and parking lots where slums used to be before they were
pulled down because they were so embarrassing. I know too little about
Saint Petersburg, Paris and Century City to comment. I've posted
arguments on my web page (towards the beginning, the discussions of
"inclusiveness" etc.) that the civil rights laws are a bad thing in the
context of human life as a whole.
> This brings to mind something I have never been able to resolve: the
> distinction between "planning" on the small scale (which is simply
> getting through life) and on the large (which seems quite perilous).
> Are they different in kind, or merely in degree?
One difference is that small-scale planning is more likely to involve
repetitive situations in a stable setting, which makes learning from
experience possible. Another is that planner and planning process are
less part of what's being planned. Also, the planners, actors and
intended beneficiaries are more likely to be the same or at least
closely connected to each other, and to have personal knowledge of
what's going on and personal commitment to its success.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
From root@freelance.com Tue May 19 13:23:07 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id NAA16014
for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA10958;
Tue, 19 May 1998 12:43:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 823F65; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:29:01 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 05:19:57 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.97.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant writes:
> As a Christian, how can you argue that the political community is
>anything other than instrumental?
It's conceivable that political community could be natural for man, and
if so no more purely instrumental than say having legs. Or perhaps for
Christians it's purely instrumental for a man to have a body?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Tue May 19 18:13:29 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id SAA02463
for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 18:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id RAA21874;
Tue, 19 May 1998 17:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 823FCD; Tue, 19 May 1998 17:06:04 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:54:52 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: emerson, locke, and founders
Message-ID: <35c.102.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
With regard to the issues Messrs. Bates and Grant are discussing:
If the Founding produced the best polity humanly possible, why did
Emerson and Thoreau find the social order so morally vacuous? It seems
to me Emerson's habitual outlook makes sense if the Founders' order was
based in the end on sensation, desire, property, contract and formal
procedures, and nothing more. Given such a public order the obvious
resource of a man who accepted the order but wanted to preserve the
life of the spirit would be a radical moral individualism bordering on
solipsism. If the constitution is godless then the patriot, if a
religious man, will follow Emerson and become his own Jesus.
It seems to me that radical individualism is not at all uncommon in
America. E. and T. seem to me quite characteristically American. When
the Founders' order reached maturity they were the ones who were there
to explain what it all meant. People have loved them for it ever
since. Why would the best polity give rise to an outlook like theirs?
One problem with E. and T. of course is that it's quite difficult to
maintain the absolute sanctuary of individual privacy. Government has
the power of death and taxes, and men are not disembodied spirits, so
it is impossible as a practical matter wholly to restrict the concerns
of government to a limited range of issues that excludes the most
important things. If government limits itself wholly to "doing what it
does best," promoting safety and prosperity say, and is not guided by
an authoritative vision of something higher, then the vision it does
have is likely to become comprehensively authoritative, and it will
promote what it is good at promoting, material satisfaction or
whatever, ultimately by compulsion and at the expense of better things.
My own view is that it seems right that government should do what it
does best. It also seems that the ultimate point of reference of any
comprehensive system of thought and action, including the political
order, should be what *is* best. Is that wrong? Does Locke ever
suggest anything of the sort?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 01:38:23 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id BAA06745
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id BAA25208;
Wed, 20 May 1998 01:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 823FE5; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:02:12 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:14:59 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: natural rights and the dec.
Message-ID: <35c.104.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
> For Locke, and for our Founders, the highest things occur in the
> private realm. *This is necessarily true given a Christian political
> context.*
This seems odd. Christ's ministry was public, and his church a public
institution with public scriptures, creeds, ceremonies etc. Private
revelation is somewhat suspect, and must be squared with public
revelation, held to have ended with the last of the apostles and thence
carried forward by the Christian community.
> For the Christian, there is a relationship of faith that transcends
> ethnicity, and may even oppose ethnicity.
The sentence remains true if "physical survival" is substituted for
"ethnicity." If you look at the New Testament it appears that the
nations remain constitutive of human life.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 01:39:03 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id BAA26034
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id BAA25276;
Wed, 20 May 1998 01:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824003; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:03:14 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 19:34:58 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.108.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant writes:
> > > As a Christian, how can you argue that the political community
> > >is anything other than instrumental?
> For the Christian, the political community is not a final end. A
> good political community is instrumental in obtaining man's final
> end, the beatific vision. I do think (with Augustine and Aquinas)
> that man is social/political by nature.
> For Christians there is no division of body and soul in our
> nature-at the resurrection of the dead we will have both still.
But for the Christian the body is not a final end either. It also is
instrumental in obtaining his final end, because it enables him to read
the Bible, receive communion, what have you. Nonetheless, it is not
purely instrumental, because it is part of man's nature to have a body.
It makes no sense to say that what I am is merely the instrument of
what I am. At the resurrection I suppose we will have a glorified body
and be members of the Kingdom, which I suppose could be classified as a
glorified political community.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 10:13:28 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id KAA28435
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:13:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id KAA27578;
Wed, 20 May 1998 10:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824022; Wed, 20 May 1998 08:15:54 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 07:29:42 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: emerson, locke, and founders
Message-ID: <35c.112.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
> I am at a loss. Emerson and Thoureau's problems with America
> don't necessarily say anything about our Founding. Dewey and Wilson
> had problems with our Founding, does that mean the Founding was bad?
> The problem with this period of New England thought is that it shows
> us what happens when one really stops believing in God and natural
> rights.
It may be just my own current hobby-horse, but E. and T. seem to me to
speak for the moral and spiritual side of the American polity in its
most favorable aspect when considered by its most gifted observers. I
would say they believed in God and natural rights, but their beliefs
were deeply affected by their radical rejection of society as a bearer
of spiritual order, which made religion private and inexpressible and
rights somewhat unsystematic.
Their problem was not with America in particular but with society as
such, and it resulted I believe from the molding of their moral
sensibilities by the Founding and its consequences, which they were far
from rejecting. You seem to believe them significant only for a
particular period in the thought of one small section of the country.
>From my view that is simply not their place in American thought. If
for you they are not an issue then no one can force them to be so.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 12:48:39 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id MAA22589
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:48:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA13082;
Wed, 20 May 1998 12:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824043; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:25:00 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:04:32 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.116.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
> The Kingdom cannot be classified as a political community, unless you
> pull a Pehme on the definition of politics (cf. his discussion of
> lying).
Why then is it called the Kingdom? It is a community of men with
comprehesive efficacious authority as to their common life. At present
of course it exists very imperfectly but we are told that will not
always be so.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 12:49:36 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id MAA28912
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA13093;
Wed, 20 May 1998 12:40:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824047; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:25:06 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:07:29 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.117.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant writes:
> I never said our body is purely instrumental-in fact I said as a
> composite of body and soul our body cannot be considered purely
> instrumental, it cannot be considered apart from our final end.
I agree totally. My question is whether you'd say the same about
political community, on the grounds that man is by nature a political
as well as an embodied creature, and if not why not.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 20 12:50:17 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id MAA22830
for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:50:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA13074;
Wed, 20 May 1998 12:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824040; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:24:46 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:57:40 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: natural rights and the dec.
Message-ID: <35c.115.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant wrote:
> The nations might remain constitutive of political life, but not of
> our transpolitical membership in the Body of Christ. For the
> Christian, the most important distinction is not ethnicity (note
> *ethnoi*) but religious faith.
The question is whether the existence of the nations is purely
instrumental. If they are constitutive of human life it seems they are
not.
The most important things are not the only things. Our membership in
the Body of Christ doesn't even depend on our possession of a living
human body. When the Kingdom is fully come I suppose the saints will
have perfect bodies and live in a perfect community. In the meantime
our actual bodies and actual communities retain their importance as
constituents of our humanity flawed though all those things are.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Thu May 21 14:30:27 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id OAA19670
for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id OAA08542;
Thu, 21 May 1998 14:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 8240A8; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:55:34 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:40:54 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: emerson, locke, and founders
Message-ID: <35c.124.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
> Look, Emerson and Thoureau are not an issue for me because they
> do not go along with the Founding, but choose romanticism instead.
> There are some books on the subject, I will send you a list that
> demonstrates my point.
One way of putting the issue is to ask whether making the highest
things purely private means romanticism. Did post-war managerial
liberalism lead to the '60s? Were Taoism and Legalism secretly allied
against Confucianism? Do Locke and the Founding imply Emerson? It
seems to me the answer is yes in each case.
A list of books would be welcome.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Thu May 21 14:31:24 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id OAA02329
for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id OAA08536;
Thu, 21 May 1998 14:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 8240A6; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:55:28 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:32:56 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.123.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
> Look, political communities come into being and pass away, right?
So do human bodies. In the Kingdom do we have bodies?
> I really don't understand what you are driving at here.
You said that for the Christian the political community must be purely
instrumental. That claim seems to be related to your claim that
post-Christ a Lockean regime in which the highest things are purely
private is the definitive solution to the political problem. From your
account of the _Second Treatise_ it appears that such a regime is
constructed wholly without reference to the highest things but only
with reference to liberty, equality and property.
My problem with these claims (you will no doubt tell me if I have
misunderstood them) is that it seems to me that man is by nature a
political animal, so the highest things for him have essential
political aspects. It seems to follow that a regime constructed
without reference to those things will not be the definitive solution
to the political problem. Since the highest things have essential
political aspects accepted political principles have implications as to
the highest things. It seems to follow that a regime constructed
without regard to the highest things will act as if there are no such
things, or rather as if its own principles are the highest things, and
at times forcibly sacrifice higher to lower things. Since man is
neither a solitary nor a disembodied spirit such a result is troubling.
His social and embodied nature make it impossible I think to separate
the political and the private to the degree you seem to contemplate.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Fri May 22 13:06:46 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id NAA15563
for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:06:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA02757;
Fri, 22 May 1998 12:44:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 82412F; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:32:12 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:05:29 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: vindicating the founders
Message-ID: <35c.139.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant writes:
> If this means that the higher things have no place, then Locke was
> wrong. I just think that it is not obvious that Locke thought the
> higher things should be driven from the political realm.
I suppose my concern is that if you think you're constructing politics
from basic principles then you're likely to put into your basic
principles what you think ought to be in politics. So Locke's apparent
silence about a place for the higher things in politics seems
important.
> At any rate, that is not how our Founders understood Locke.
Here the concern is that the objective logic of basic principles can in
time overwhelm the subjective understandings and intentions of those
who adopt them. The philosopher I suppose is the man who best knows
what that logic leads to.
The point of mentioning Emerson by the way is that he is thought to be
a central rather than peripheral American thinker, he is certainly an
acute observer, and his concern is what to do about the highest things
if society is essentially a contract entered into for material ends.
So his testimony seems relevant if we want to understand the spiritual
implications of the Founding.
I don't know enough about Locke or the Founding to pursue this much
farther without more work than I have time for just now. Thanks for
your comments though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"It was a curious result, in which the civility and religion of England
for a thousand years ends in denying morals and reducing the intellect
to a sauce-pan." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Mon May 25 15:09:21 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id PAA13431
for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 15:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id PAA23392;
Mon, 25 May 1998 15:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 82423B; Mon, 25 May 1998 14:52:14 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 11:38:02 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: locke and the higher things
Message-ID: <35c.152.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
John Grant writes:
> Mr. Kalb has indicated concern that Locke, and America, do not
> provide for a regime that encourages its citizens to look to the
> higher things. Now by higher things I take it you mean serious
> concern with religion?
I meant goods not reducible to desires and their fulfillment, to formal
principles like equality, or to a system of public life justified by
reference to desires, efficiency, and formal principles. Any system
establishing such goods as objects of public concern could I think
reasonably be called "religion."
> Now the problem is that this type of concern for the higher things
> requires a state establishment of religion and ultimately coercion
> involving religious practice. I take it this is the case you make
> because neither Locke nor our Founders had any problem with state
> support of religions whose moral precepts and practice do not
> contravene the morality found in natural right. What Locke and the
> Founders taught was that one may not coerce others in matters of
> faith.
I'm not sure of your distinction between state support and state
establishment. Since state acts typically involve coercion both could
be said to coerce in matters of faith. What would you include as
praiseworthy support or as objectionable coercion? How about say a
prescribed prayer to open the day in public schools?
To me "establishment" primarily means state recognition of a religion as
true. State acts like other acts can be understood as rational only
within some understanding of the world. What is good, beautiful and
true, including what is so in connection with religion, defines what the
world is like. Therefore it seems that the state must have its own
understanding of such things for its acts to make sense. You seem to
propose that an understanding of public life based solely on equality,
arbitrary individual freedom, contract and property does not establish
religion. To me that suggests that you believe that such an
understanding has no implications for an understanding of what the world
is ultimately like, which seems odd.
It does seem to me that in general what the state recognizes as good,
beautiful and true and what it compels are not the same. To have an
understanding and base compulsion on it when compulsion is thought
proper is not altogether the same as compelling the understanding,
which is impossible in any event. The state might act on an
understanding of economics that accepts monetarism or (in running a
school system or giving prizes say) on an understanding of literature
that rates Shakespeare as the best English poet and dramatist. Would
that be compulsion in matters of economic theory or literature? If
not, why would state recognition of particular religious views as true
and acting on those views, for example by supporting their teaching, be
objectionable compulsion in matters of faith? If religion is special,
maybe because it is contested and its implications are comprehensive
and fundamental, I'm not sure why a regime based on the view that
public life must be based on equality, arbitrary freedom and property
would ultimately be less coercive with respect to the religious
implications of its views than others.
> The Founders, and Locke, instead involve government primarily in the
> support of morality, as it is possible for Christians of various
> denominations, Jews, etc. to share the common morality that makes a
> free and virtuous society possible. This is because the principles
> of natural right which are the basis of this free and virtuous
> society are accessible to man through the use of his unassisted human
> reason.
What kind of accessibility are we talking about here? It doesn't seem
sufficient to do away with conflict as to fundamental issues.
Unreconstructed Mormons, not to mention adherents of Thugee and an
apparent solid majority of those who presently devote their professional
lives to speculations on morality and politics from the standpoint of
unassisted human reason, reject what Locke and the Founding Fathers
would have viewed as the natural right principles of common morality
that make a free and virtuous society possible.
Also, I myself am not sure what the natural right principles of common
morality that make a free and virtuous society possible would include.
To the extent such a society is to be based solely on equality,
arbitrary individual freedom, contract and property, as your account of
the _Second Treatise_ suggests, I suppose they would be principles that
promote the lasting prosperity of such a society. As such, I'm not
sure why they wouldn't include rejection of revealed religion and other
systems of thought that tell people that there are principles of public
importance that John Locke fails to include in his construction, and
also rejection, as inconsistent with equal free individuality, of
public standards other than contract for family life, sex and so on.
> The reason why the regime cannot unqualifiedly support the higher
> things (by state establishment of religion tied to coercion of
> practice) is the fallen nature of man and the metapysical freedom of
> the mind-"Almighty God hath created the mind free."
Support can be qualified in a variety of ways. "The fallen nature of
man" means I think "be prudent and don't expect too much." I would
interpret it as implying for example "don't think you've discovered the
definitive solution of the theo-political problem." As to the
metaphysical freedom of the mind, it leaves a lot of room for what
anyone would call a religious establishment. For example, it wouldn't
contradict that freedom if public officials were required to be
adherents of a particular religion, its ministers were publicly
subsidized, it were taught in the public schools, and public expression
of other religions were restricted in various ways.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"You cannot institute, without peril of charlatanism." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Tue May 26 12:30:37 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id MAA16378
for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA03571;
Tue, 26 May 1998 12:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 824277; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:13:44 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:59:05 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: locke and the higher things
Message-ID: <35c.160.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
jgrant@acad.udallas.edu (John Grant) writes:
> The principles of natural right forming a basis for a common morality
> were known to our Founders, and if they are not known by some today,
> then perhaps it is best to go back to their thoughts on the matter.
My concern is that the principles of social order set forth in your
summary of the _Second Treatise_ appear to me to lead toward the
politically correct common morality many favor today. Others have
thought about these issues more than I have, so I thank you for the
references.
> What other public standard for marriage would you propose than
> contract?
Whether a marriage exists is no doubt a matter of contract -- meeting
of the minds publicly expressed in some authorized way -- but the
substance of marriage seems to me not contractual but a matter of
status. Otherwise the parties would be free to vary the rights and
obligations of marriage as they chose. Also it would be unclear why a
marriage contract between an unrelated man and woman should be treated
differently from other contracts with generally similar terms simply on
grounds of status of the parties, for example contracts between a man
and his sister or two men. It would be unclear what in principle is
wrong with polygamy, since a multiparty contract is no less a meeting
of the minds than a two-party one.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"You cannot institute, without peril of charlatanism." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From root@freelance.com Wed May 27 12:35:24 1998
Received: from onyx.interactive.net (root@onyx.interactive.net [208.192.224.6])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id MAA16918
for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dialog.UUCP (dialog@localhost)
by onyx.interactive.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with UUCP id MAA14050;
Wed, 27 May 1998 12:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: onyx.interactive.net: dialog set sender to dialog!root using -f
Received: by dialog (NetXpress 1.54.beta3) via UUCP id 8242D4; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:03:25 -0500
To: Multiple recipients of list US-FOUNDERS
Reply-To: us-founders@freelance.com
Errors-To: root@freelance.com
Sender: root@freelance.com
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
X-Mailer: NetXpress 1.54.beta3
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:33:25 -0500
Organization: The Free Lance Academy (bbs) 201-963-6019
Subject: re: locke and the higher things
Message-ID: <35c.169.237@freelance.com>
Status: RO
jgrant@acad.udallas.edu (John Grant) writes:
> Well I really don't see how Locke leads to modern political
> correctness. Perhaps you could tell me how the natural right teaching
> of Locke evolves into (or did it need to evolve?) what we have today.
I'm not able to argue the point intelligently now, because I haven't
read Locke recently enough or enough of the Founding Fathers. You seem
to be searching for possible lines of thought, though, so I should say
that what I had in mind was what I said a couple of posts ago:
To the extent such a society is to be based solely on equality,
arbitrary individual freedom, contract and property, as your account
of the _Second Treatise_ suggests, I suppose [the socially
authoritative moral principles] would be principles that promote the
lasting prosperity of such a society. As such, I'm not sure why they
wouldn't include rejection of revealed religion and other systems of
thought that tell people that there are principles of public
importance that John Locke fails to include in his construction, and
also rejection, as inconsistent with equal free individuality, of
public standards other than contract for family life, sex and so on.
I suppose my problem is that if equality and arbitrary individual will
are the basis of public life, understood as a rational system
constructed to give effect to those things (your account and my
recollection of the _Second Treatise_ make it seem like that), I'm not
sure where the natural law comes from that's applicable to public life
that says there's something wrong with a contract among three men to
share expenses and sexual communion that distinguishes it so much from
a traditional marriage. On such a basis it seems to me more
straightforward to proclaim a public morality that forbids putting such
contracts at a disadvantage compared with more traditional
arrangements, since they equally give effect to arbitrary will, one's
property (_ius utere et abutere_) in his body, etc. The latter
morality is of course a PC morality.
> See Frothingham's book on New England Transcendentalism for its ties
> to the German idealism and romanticism.
I don't question the ties, it just seems to me that a public world that
excludes the spirit causes idealism and romanticism. I think Babbitt
touches on the issue in _Rousseau and Romanticism_.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"You cannot institute, without peril of charlatanism." (Emerson)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Via: The Free Lance Academy - part of DialogNet -- BBS: 201-963-6019 --
For info/help: send blank message to: info@freelance.com
http://www.freelance.com (you may subscribe or unsubscribe from this page) or-
To unsub from a list mail to listserv@freelance.com: text "unsub "
Report errors, problems and requests to: lance.fletcher@freelance.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 28 21:54:57 EDT 1998
Article: 12297 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Planning
Date: 28 May 1998 09:33:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <6kjp3a$q8p@panix.com>
References: <1d97p3u.1dv8lz67pm8w0N@deepblue1.salamander.com> <356ae818.4100299@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <1d9oess.19zhwcmhgr8tkN@deepblue2.salamander.com> <896306560snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
> many places which sentimentalists tend to think of as having evolved
> organically turn out to have been planned, if not at one go then in
> several chunks, and the 'organic' patina is the result of small-scale
> adjustments in succeeding centuries
I don't know the specific places or sentimentalists you have in mind.
It does seem to me that design that takes time, that occurs in stages
that reflect how people come to use and feel about a place they live
with, and that has the benefit of numerous small-scale adjustments over
a period of centuries, is likely to avoid many of the disadvantages of
technocracy. The problem I think is less conscious planning as a part
of things than comprehensive planning that attempts to substitute an
integrated structure based solely on universal principles for
arrangements that depend essentially on inarticulate habits and
perceptions and the like.
> Why, in human architecture and town design, do simple geometrical
> shapes, rare in nature (such as circles or rectilinear layouts), and
> symmetrical elevations, so freqently occur?
What's the mystery? To the extent men are going to plan something they
normally do so by reference to forms that are easy for them to grasp.
> The tendency is not inevitable: more genuinely 'organic' town layouts
> or field systems, as in the Islamic Middle East or parts of the
> highland and woodland zones of Western Europe, can be very irregular.
Irregular and also unintentional. Romanticism, intentional choice of
the irregular, is a late development that occurs as a reaction against
overly developed rationalism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"You cannot institute, without peril of charlatanism." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu May 28 21:54:58 EDT 1998
Article: 12298 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Planning/high context:low context
Date: 28 May 1998 09:35:06 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <6kjp6a$qb7@panix.com>
References: <1d97p3u.1dv8lz67pm8w0N@deepblue1.salamander.com> <356ae818.4100299@news.srv.ualberta.ca> <1d9oess.19zhwcmhgr8tkN@deepblue2.salamander.com> <356CD504.DD7F1404@msmisp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
Carl Jahnes writes:
> Kunstler has some interesting examples, say, of the appropriate
> "form" for a window. It should, he says, be of the proportion of the
> human body. In other words, it should be tall and narrow, and not
> short and long, as you'd see in a Frank Lloyd Wright house.
Interesting. Wright's houses always struck me as being about landscape
rather than people. They're much easier for me to visualize without
anybody in them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"You cannot institute, without peril of charlatanism." (Emerson)
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.