From: "Jamie Morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Positivism, Realism, Materialism Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Shiv, I don't understand the basis of your questions - please elaborate - do they derive form what I said or what you would like to raise? jamie ----- Original Message ----- From: shiv kumar To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Positivism, Realism, Materialism Bodies are vehicles that not only seek indoctrination, but can easily be indoctrinated. How would you respond to this line of thought, given the long history of religion, ideology,...... And, once something has been inscribed, why is it difficult to shake off? Why so many accept the correspondence between reality and sense-experience? Why is it that disjuncture between the two is difficult to call into question? What is the structuring of the structures of cognition that impart resistance? Shiv Jamie Morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: I'll give this some thought - my gut, no pun intended, reaction to relations and bodies is to say they are also in bodies (though probably in a different way than you mean) - in a Foucauldian sense we internalise relations and discipline ourselves accordingly (which is not meant to suggest 'I drive a bus therefore I am'), also our bodies are highly adaptable to aspects of social relations and in this sense internalise siomethign about them - witness the invesrion of the long term conjunction between weight and wealth - in Capitalism fat is now an aspect of class - the rich are thin, the poor are not (with exceptions in both directions). This though really doesn't answre your question. I'll come back to you. Jamie ----- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
HTML VERSION:
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu -------- Original Message -----From: shiv kumarSent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:42 PMSubject: Re: BHA: Re: Positivism, Realism, MaterialismBodies are vehicles that not only seek indoctrination, but can easily be indoctrinated. How would you respond to this line of thought, given the long history of religion, ideology,......And, once something has been inscribed, why is it difficult to shake off?Why so many accept the correspondence between reality and sense-experience? Why is it that disjuncture between the two is difficult to call into question? What is the structuring of the structures of cognition that impart resistance?Shiv
Jamie Morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:I'll give this some thought - my gut, no pun intended, reaction to relations
and bodies is to say they are also in bodies (though probably in a different
way than you mean) - in a Foucauldian sense we internalise relations and
discipline ourselves accordingly (which is not meant to suggest 'I drive a
bus therefore I am'), also our bodies are highly adaptable to aspects of
social relations and in this sense internalise siomethign about them -
witness the invesrion of the long term conjunction between weight and
wealth - in Capitalism fat is now an aspect of class - the rich are thin,
the poor are not (with exceptions in both directions). This though really
doesn't answre your question. I'll come back to you.
Jamie
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005