At de Lange writes of the reason he rejected apartheid:
>It is that apartheid impairs all seven essentialities of creativity and
>thus all emergences which depend on the seven essentialities. I have seen
>how apartheid destroyed people's learning, believing and loving. Our
>beloved country is still staggering because of the destructive
>immergences and the workings which they lead to like killing, raping,
>stealling, lying, swearing, etc.
Once again I submit, At, that this is essentially a pragmatic kind of
reasoning. Don't be confused, as many are, by the use of the word "work."
William James created confusion forevermore by using it. [I refer you to
my extended message: Pragmatism: LO21430.] He meant it in the sense of
"as things work out" -- that is, what "results" from believing something.
As you say, the policy of apartheid did not "work out" because its results
were not to create a utopian society but, rather, one that resulted in
horrible consequences. To object to apartheid on religious grounds, or on
logical grounds, or on metaphysical grounds (all of which are possible to
do) is not a pragmatic objection -- but to object to apartheid because of
what resulted from it is fundamentally pragmatic.
At, I'm accusing you of being a closet pragmatist! And now you're out of
the closet! I welcome you to the club. Though I, too, don't like to
label myself any kind of ###-ist, I am honest enough to admit that I use
pragmatic principles very often in my thinking.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>