>Perhaps it might be useful to distinguish projection from teleology, from
>normative standardisation before the fact. To have a project in mind is to
>have something one can expose to the contingencies of practice, to
>"empirical guilt" to borrow a phrase. That is, vis a vis spontaneity, it's
>all very well to talk about being exposed to the contingent, but what after
>all is it that one is exposing?
Something that one either was previously unaware of. Or something that one
thought beneath notice. Or something that one would wish to disown.
My position is of course far more complex than simple oppositions, but I
don't have time to go into it (yet again) at the moment. A teaser: it's
about process, not practice.
Re: tact. I should have thought it would be obvious that I didn't mean
good, normative, or appropriate manners (OED 2) but "a keen faculty of
perception or descrimination..." (OED 1b).
Mark
|