These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Re: How are "goals" related to "committments"?



I think I get the general drift of what you are saying, Larry. But in
general I find
it very difficult to know, other than in particular cases where the
abstractions have
risen to the concrete, what precisely is at issue. I have all sorts of
committments, lots of
them, if I were to step back and examine them, in contradiction with each
other I suspect.
Others post hoc rationalizations.

How does one sort all of this out in a way that helps us make sense of the
issues on the table here at XMCA?

mike

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few further thoughts from Mike's article. On the last 2 pages Mike
> explores Bourdieu's notion of habitus and Schweder's notion of
> understanding
> practices as a series of MORALLY enforcable conceptual schemes as capturing
> the notion of "structuration" [Giddens] These various notions of
> practice-in-contexts integrate past experience and a matrix of
> "perceptions"
> "apperceptions" and "actions" which make possible multiple POTENTIAL
> RESPONSES to the world.
> This matrix is IMPLICIT and is "usually" the unexamined background
> assumptions that orient us as wayfarers to move and operate within the
> world as "structured ways of life"
> Taylor's project is to take this basic insight, shared with Bourdieau and
> Schweder, and amplify the notion of "committments" as particular ethical
> "ways of life".  Taylor's book "Sources of the Self" makes clear there are
> multiple "ways of life" [habitus?] that co-exist in a particular historical
> moment and what is central [for Taylor] is the depth of committment to a
> way
> of life [an ethical stance] that orientes the person to dwelling in the
> world.
>
> Larry
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike and others
> >
> > Mike, reflecting on your comment that the relevant order of context [as
> > weaving] for analysis depends crucially on the particular tools through
> > which one interacts with the world AND this tool use depends crucially on
> > the GOALS and other constraints on action withIN the permeable changing
> > events of life.  Mike, if one substitutes the word "committments" for the
> > term "goals" does this change the meaning you are pointing towards?
> > The reason I'm asking this question is because of where Charles Taylor
> > locates "committment" within his particular notion of "context" as "ways
> of
> > life".  As I read Taylor, he is pointing to ETHICS [how we "should"
> proceed]
> > as centrally ABOUT committments.  These committments emerge wiithin
> > HISTORICALLY constituted ways of life and it is these "shared"
> committments
> > [which can be implicit, not explicit] as "horizons of understanding"
> which
> > give meaning to practices, events, conduct, etc.  I didn't add the term
> > "situation" to that list because as I'm reading your article "situation"
> can
> > be read to include "committments" and "ways of life" withIN "situations".
> >
> > These committments [within horizons of understanding] can be read as
> > contexts that "surround" in the way Taylor is suggesting Brandom does not
> go
> > far enough in locating the  PARTICULAR ethical committment of "giving and
> > asking for reasons" as a particular historically embedded language game
> > which structures our practices and events [and our institutions]
> > However, is it also possible to locate historically constituted ETHICAL
> > "committments" as  weaving [context] that explores the emergence of
> > committments within the permeable changing events of life.  The emergence
> of
> > "committments" in the day to day intersubjective dialogical,
> INTRA-weavings
> > [not INTER-weavings which suggest the committments PRE-exist].
> >
> > I don't presume to know how context/surrounds" and context/weaves are
> > related but the place of "goals"/"committments" seems to relevant aspects
> of
> > the "situation"/"way of life".
> >
> > Larry
> >
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca