The frame of reference shifts
doubly; it also shifts from third person frames of speech to first person
since meaning within is so enormously and continually discoverable that we
must continually be on guard/opportunity with the question of "Who am I?"
The old vertical metaphysics places
the subject in an exalted, "God's-eye-view" above the vista of reality to
assume a kind of know-it-all position. This metaphysics is typified
by its primary use of the book as claims of finality of this is what it
is.
The problem with this approach, among other problems, is that it has more
than reached its limit of usefulness. The barrage of written
material in print today, the multiplicity of points of view all armed with
the self assurance of omniscience are making for a cultural commons that
is an ice storm of tectonic collisions all insisting on supremacy without
adequate avenues of finding much common dialogue between them.
Amidst this ideological carnage many people have taken more personal,
cross-cultural and cross-specialties dialogues as a way to escape the fray
and to forge genuine and interesting connections. Society philosophy
is an attempt to make this new cultural commons more understandable and
available for more confident interactions. This point lays out the I
to Thou level of horizontal interaction with its horizontal openness as
prototypical.
Quotes
"On the far side of the subjective,
on this side of the objective, on the narrow ridge, where I and Thou meet,
there is the realm of 'between.'
"This reality, whose disclosure has begun in our time, shows the way,
leading beyond individualism and collectivism, for the life decision of
future generations. Here the genuine third alternative is indicated, the
knowledge of which will help to bring about the genuine person again and
to establish genuine community.
"I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou. All
real living is meeting." I and Thou, Martin Buber from The Way of Response
Martin Buber, Nahum Glatzer, Schocken Books, New York, 1966, pp. 48, 55.
“I’m right; my opponent is wrong. This closure thwarts discourse with
outsiders. It precludes agreement (that isn’t surprising) but its worst
political effect is that it obstructs disagreement: It makes argument
untenable by undercutting its necessary conditions. People don’t need to
hold the same beliefs to argue, or to achieve decisions and execute
policies. They need only reach agreement on a viable measure of their
differences that permits working agreements, compromise, and consensus.”
Willard, Charles Arthur. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New
Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996. p. 129.
"From the viewpoint of the users of the language, each such sub-system
[of types of truth] constitutes a unitary, seamless sensitivity. It is we
[outsiders to a culture] who have in retrospect sorted it out into two
strands, and, above all, into two strands of radically different kinds.
One of them is referential: its claims stand or fall in accordance with
objective states of affairs. It is properly 'operationalized', and linked
to its own bit of 'nature', which decides its 'truth' or 'falsehood'. The
other, despite the great variety of functions it can perform, serves above
all the affirmation of commitment to shared concepts by the users of the
language. They are, at the same time, members of the same community.
Loyalty to concepts makes possible loyalty to the community.
"A concept is, of course, far more than a 'mere' concept: it encapsulates
and communicates and authorizes a shared way of classifying, valuing, a
shared range of social and natural expectations and obligations. It makes
cooperation and communication possible. It limits behaviour and
sensibility, otherwise endowed with a potentially infinite diversity, into
circumscribed bounds, and thereby establishes a 'culture', and makes
communication possible." Gellner, Ernest. Plough, Sword and
Book; The Structure of Human History. University of Chicago Press.
1988. p. 55.
Examples
Statement of Point
If I am a society and I accept you as a society,
then our differences and our
radical under-knowability are assumed as given as we construct and
discover our paired society and seek to make it produce a pleasing economy
in goods of our choice such as joy, support, struggle, humor or learning.
We are neither facts nor subjects but builders in ever evolving societies.
Bibliography
Further
Considerations