From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:05:05 EST
Subject: Re: New Year, Same Old Crap


In a message dated 1/7/99 6:31:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pyrew-AT-csv.warwick.ac.uk writes:

<< Two people examine a third individual who acts 'eccentrically'. One says
 that this person is a schizo out for a stroll and so should be celebrated
 and left to her own devices, the other agrees with the definition but
 claims that she is a danger to herself and so should be institutionalized
 as there is a high risk that otherwise she will walk under a car or
 something. Are you still going to say that they are both right? Please
 don't go into your 'institutionalized psychiatry' diatribe, as this is not
 the issue here; The issue is how can you tell what is the most positive
 ethical act under the circumstances when you think that everyone's
 interpretation of experience is equally valid? >>

The problem that I have with this example is that it involves two people
trying to decide something for another person. I'm more interested in the
first person's experience and engaging that than engaging in polemics with the
latter two people.

And I do not think that everyone's interpretation is equally valid.

In your first example, there were two people who had experiences and
interpreted them differently. Then a third party, us the audience, are being
called upon to decide or judge these interpretations and sort out which is
more correct, or perhaps to construct our own alternative theory. Again,
someone else is attempting to decide how someone else's experience ought to be
interpreted.

Obviously phenomenology is problematic because the "logos" part of the
equation is seeped in social meanings which are themselves power relations.
However, this does not mean that the language people call upon to describe
their experience is monolithic, and therefore there is great room for creative
juxtaposition of meanings ; therefore a creative phenomenology is possible.
This project is part of autonomy or self-naming, or if you prefer, reflexive-
meaning. It is a local way of making sense of life that bricolages and juggles
elements of common meaning systems, a la Certeau.

Regarding modelizations of experience, many might be quite useful in various
degrees, depending on one's criteria of usefulness. A medieval European who
walked into the forest and experienced awe at its majesty might be content
with the description "I walked with God." A Heideggerian phenomenologist on
the other hand might prefer something along the lines of "In my encounter with
the forest I experienced overwhelming awe". Perhaps someone else might
construe the experience as being "bewitched" or "spellbound" by a certain
magic or mana of the place. But some modelizations might not serve the person
at all ; in fact, they might serve to lessen their autonomy or to dominate
them.

The problem with the "schizo" example is that both parties already have
grouped the other individual as a "schizophrenic". Well, how would the person
describe hirself --- or more importantly, how would the person's experience
self-declare? The whole notion of other people deciding something for this
person participates in a coercive model.