drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

prefatory ponderings

For the last couple of mornings i have woken up to mull over the phrase:
Prelude to a Problem
as the working title of the collection of epistemological problems that arise with the various jeffersonianisms about 'we hold these truths...'

Are these really mystic moments? Wherein we are talking about a leap of faith to the notion of 'certain inalienable rights'? Does it have to be? is also on the question rack. Amongst the general arguments normally put forward for the jeffersonianisms is the desirement that things like rights are not something that are 'granted by the government' - and hence can not be taken away by the government. But do we need an imaginarySkyFriend of any form to get that proposition out there?

Which also raises the unpleasantry that perchance secular mysticism is not really any more useful a form of detaching 'the thing in itself' from the ikky part of epistemology, namely, that, uh, what if it is not really, well, 'the thing in itself'. What if it is more like say, bob. A little bashful, and not always interested in whether or not there is a thing in encounter let alone a thing in interpretation. ( yes, you will want to start with at least Noumenon as it also works for "Ding an sich" - when you are webSurfing for the phrases. Yes, you will have to feel at home with the need to deal with epistemological issues. But the alternative of course is that one adopt the post-surrealist world of the TeaBaggers, where all is as it would have been, if the history of our founding fathers had been the absurdities that the electric kool-aid acid test would have made them, if the founding fathers had only done the right types of gnostic mysticism... Which many of them did not. So let us skip over the whole re-inventing abbie hoffman's yippies as the new enlightenment phase, and start back to worrying about the old enlightenment phase that occurred in the reality plane before the first 'back to the future' movie. Ever notice that the whole cosmos sorta fractured after that.... long before the 12 monkies. )

At one end of that is the hope that we can arrive at a safe place where we can have a rational discussion about american political philosophy. But that would of course require that we move the discussion into the realm of reason. The alternative is to re-define 'rational' so that it can engage the whole range of wild mystico-religious leaps that american political philosophy has taken in the last few decades. Is it even worth it to try to ponder the problem, if, in the end, the whole discourse will involve translating it into the sort of post-surrealism of the palineqsue. { ah yes, for those kinder, gentler days, when the rational knee-jerk liberal response was to Michael Palin of the Monty Python crew. Rather than the other absurdist, who, uh, tends to think that she is being, well, not quite pythonesque in the holy grail beacon lighting that she has done. }

So is the problem really worth the pondering, let alone the effort to take the matter seriously? I mean, in our current cultural kampfGruppen, uh, will any form of rational discourse survive the collapse of the Mayan Calendar Crisis? And will any of it mean diddly squat, if the american dollar winds up in the game of $2,000-$5,000 per ounce gold that is all the popular desirement of the alleged contrarians... And will there still be a need for rational discourse in those coming halcyon days???
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments