coffee is good for you

      

 

 

          

 

 

 

                 

 

"We exist in moments of gentle apocalypse"                       Roland Barthes      

 
attention deficit...blog type thing      

                                    

 

25 Feb 06: Can't we all just agree to disagree?

 

I have been chewing on today’s topic for some time.  But my schedule required that I lay it out pretty quick. Have to go out today and ask the locals how they enjoy life with out regular drinking water or electricity. 

 

If we ‘agree to disagree’, can someone explain how this is not a confirmation of the acceptance if not embrace of relativism?

 

I have academically worked through the process of validating relativist philosophy from the ground up, which is what my brain requires for me to be thoroughly fluent on a subject.  However, the opposing principle of moral absolutes seems much more tenuous to me, because it would in fact depends on relative judgments.

 

          If killing is acceptable, and this is not a point for discussion for me at this time, then when killing is acceptable depends on personal perspective, context, etc.  Strict self defense is not under consideration here.  I am thinking of preventive / pre-emptive action, where one must rely on conjecture.  That person is out after curfew; he may be planning to do something bad, but is not actively doing anything bad.  Do you kill them or not?  Perhaps, this could be carried to our own death penalty.  Cost considerations aside, if a killer is in prison and no longer a threat to society does he need to be killed?  This sounds like a relative judgment call to me.  Like I said, I am still working through this one.

 

My primary consideration in all of this has less to do with killing, which is a serious issue worthy of consideration, and more to do with how people think, and communicate, and work through the process of balancing individual ideals with that of a social good.  And here relativism may be flawed as well.  How do we even begin a discourse if we can not agree on some basic principles?  I believe this question was the precursor to the concepts of deconstructionism, of which I am not surprisingly a fan. 

 

If we all agree to disagree, then we will merely have partisanship.  Partisanship does one thing very very well.  It distracts attention from important discourse by isolation, segregation, and generally sets loose the human tendency towards small stupid thoughts.

 

          Imagine two starving men in such a vehement argument over whether to use a fishing lure or a worm that by the time they have finished the debate the lake has frozen over.  The debate that follows involves whether or not is was a good idea to outsource the ice fishing hole cutting to a third party.  Who itself is debating conventional or faith based sawing techniques.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Link du jour...

 

 

    

Today I am thinking about....

 

    were I to seriously study a foreign language, keeping my business future and my late start in mind, should it be Korean, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Mandarin, Hindi...? 

              

                       

 

            

 

 

 

    

Past deficits...

 

  8 Feb 06: federal deficit/$ policy

   

  4 Feb 06: attention span / davos