> Aren't you really saying that we live in an age of hypocrisy, where the
value
> of reason is used to camouflage the actually desired effect?

michael,
     not hypocrisy...nihilism.
what, for eg, do you take to be the philosophical burden
of our present circumstance with:... wholesale abortions,
kevorkian, dolly, human genome archive...?  all the previsible
issue (cf blake's Urizen, Mary shelley's frankenstein) of
instrumental reason (positive science and the regional
sciences, anthropology, sociology, psychology,...etc)
and the concommitant ideology of liberalism with its
wonderfully simple utilitarian felicific ethic,... consumerism?
and there's no cop out any longer of a "prudential use" of reason;
here's only irresistable tyranny,
engrosses everything we do and are, no?

there's no place in this world for (upper case) Art, is there?
(and Art gives expression to this bitter fact in say
picasso's grotesque deconstructions, or andy warhol's slick vapidities, or
andres serrano's "piss christ", or the "shit madonna"
of brooklyn museum fame earlier this year, etc.

anyway, hope this isn't hitting with a stick...
...but the pt is: nihilism is the overwhelming datum of modern cultural
awareness.

bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Springate <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 5:09 PM
Subject: In response to Bob


> Bob:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Your kwik n dirty geneology needs more consideration than I have been able
to
> give it.  And when I say able, I don't only mean the lack of time, but
limits
> to my learning and ability. So I doubt if anything I say will critically
> further your thoughts.
>
> Essentially, I still appeal to "instrumental reason" in my life, and in
the
> life of the community around me.  And I do evaluate reason through its
ability
> to be self-correcting and, hence, progressive.
>
> Aren't you really saying that we live in an age of hypocrisy, where the
value
> of reason is used to camouflage the actually desired effect?
>
> I certainly see the instrumental value of habit and social coercion, ie:
> authoritarian social movements, and the instrumental value of movements of
true
>
> rebellion (rare), but... I think it possible to "analyze" the "intent" and
> "effect" of
> those engaged in the propogation of either of these sorts of movements.
>
> And should this consideration lead me/us to so-called spiritual values,
such as
>
> humilty or grace (not that it has), then I would still call it founded in
> reason. And should it lead to arrogance and anger, or arrogance and sorrow
> (Nietzche?), the virtues associated with rebellion, then it could still be
> "reasonable".
>
> And that suggests that there really are legitimate conflicts of interest,
which
>
> brings us back to political analysis. The circuit out of which I can't
break.
>
> If you hit me with a stick, will I see the door?
>
>
> Michael