File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0306, message 51


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:

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).
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005