From: henry sholar <hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu> Subject: re: Re: commentary is a minstral show Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:39:56 -0500 One word: "paragraphs" On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:10:28 -0800 (PST) Tony Roberts <fdrtikol-AT-yahoo.com> wrote: > Rationality or objectivity has claimed to be just such an overarching > meta-perspective. Habermas still thinks this is possible, that in an > "ideal speech situation" all persons of good will could agree on a > single assumptive context sufficent to resolve all disputes. This is > the claim that abstract and impartial justice administered from a > perspective of "objectivity" not distorted by power relations is > possible. This is what Foucault and Lyotard have demonstrated, at > least to my satisfaction, to be false. One must, I think, give up that > particular dream, what I would call the dream of a common language > into which all our concerns, commitments and greivances can be > translated without loss or distortion. The dream is utopian and, when > we try to put it into practice, authoritarian and violent. I buy the > Whorf hypothesis. I believe there are words in any other language that > will not translate without loss or distortion into english. This does > not mean that I can never know the meaning of these words. It only > means that if I come to know their meaning I will know something that > I can not quickly and easilly explain to most english speakers. Every > shared experience, to the extent that it is important, creates a > community of common understanding similar to a shared language. These > shared understandings are just as hard to translate as foreign > tongues. I know things I can not explain to some of the people I love > most. Finally, I can not be everything I am in any one place. My > identity is dispersed across several communities and the total of what > I am is only tallyed by suming across groups. If you ask me "who are > you really, the person you are for group A or the person you are for > group B", you might as well ask me "what are you really, your liver or > your lights?". Yet the people in group A may understand little of what > I share with group B not because I have not explained but because I > can not. I can not find a common language to express all that I am to > everyone that I love and cherish. I've never meet anyone whose life > was not impoverished who could. I'm serious. I would pity the person > so narrow and so shallow that he could explain everything he loved to > everyone he loved. Yet we have this dream of rationality, of > objectivity, of a common language into which everything will translate > without loss and distortion, that would allow any fair minded person to > explain absolutely anything of any importance at all to any other fair > minded person. The dream is insidious in its beauty. It is the last > and worst seduction. It is the disease that philosophy both is and > presumes to cure. It is the root of all evil done not out of fear or > selfesness but out of general principle. There is no one language so > broad and so rich as to incompass everything that anyone could > imagine. Trying to pretend that any one language can deminishes one to > exactly the extent of the contrast between what that language can say > and what any human being anywhere anytime could possibly imagine. > Beleiveing that one common language can say it all and that everything > worth knowing can be known from some single meta-perspective tempts > one sorely to believe that whatever does not speak its self in that > language is not human and that whatever does not scan from that > perspective is deformed. Blake said "one law for the ox and the dove > is most bitter tyranny to both". I say that one language for the ox > and the dove will keep either from speaking truely. I think this is > what Foucault is saying also. I'm a great admirer of Willaim > Burroughs. His slogan "exterminate all rational thought" was, I think, > aimed at a common language which really was not common at all. Which, > for example, kept the gentleman junkie from expresiing his need with > through and for language. In the fifties, the junkie was an invisible > man disappeared behind a (in exactly Foucaults' sense) commentary > about vice and virtue. Imagine living in a world where every mirror is > distorted. Imagine not being able to see yourself reflected anywhere > except as a failure of someone elses morality or as a social problem > from Ken Star's perspective. I read Foucault the way I do because of > Burroughs and Burroughs the way I do because of Foucault. Each is a > glas on the other and I don't think it is really possible to > understand just how much of the evil in this world flows from your > innoucent dream of a common language without reading both. Please do > not misunderstand me. I am not saying that you are evil or that your > intentions are not honorable. I'm saying that "objectivity" is the > deepest, darkest utopian dream of all. Communism pales by comparison. > Any common language will be a commentary denying the reality of any > passion which has no name in that language, or, as is more likely, a > name the passion would not gladly answer too. > Sincerely, > Tony Michael Roberts > > > > ---Michael Smith <mich98ael-AT-hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >In the animal kingdom, the rule is eat or be > > >eaten. In the human world, the rule is define or be defined. Power is > > >the power to define, to make knowledge a dispersion of what goes > > >without saying from ones' own perspective and, at the same time, a > > >commentary defining the alterity of the other as delusion and > deviance. > > > Any Comments, > > > Tony Michael Roberts > > > > "Define or be defined" is true enough, but isn't it more a question > of > > "define and be defined"? Of course, in defining the "other" we > define > > "ourselves", but can we really define "ourselves" without defining an > > "other"? Can we live by "our" own "self-definition" with out it > > implying statements about others which may or may not be true? Can > any > > "we" statement escape this implication? Are "I think" statements > > entirely free of "other-defining" implications? > > > > I'd have to say that the last is possible, that we can all talk about > > our own immediate perceptions without imposing, impinging, or > defining > > others, but I'm interested in the implications of what you are saying. > > > > It's precisely that "eat or be eaten, define or be defined" that > > interests me. There is a religion in India (is it the Jains?) that > > takes extreme caution lest microbes inadvertently be destroyed by > being > > eaten, inhaled or trodden upon. As with "eat or be eaten", I have to > > wonder how radically we are to take "define or be defined". So I > have > > to ask if we can truly define ourselves with out defining others. > > > > One thing that interests me about your post (I know nothing about > > Foucault, but I'm trying to stay intellectually active), is the > > possibility (and impossibility) of a "metalanguage" of overarching > > statements. To say, "I dislike X, because I view it against the > > background of W, Y and Z," leaving open the possibility that you may > > love X, because in your experience it is juxtaposed with or seen > against > > the horizon of A, B, and C, may be a way of making sense of the world > > and minimizing disagreements (assuming that we think it important to > do > > so). But if life is a struggle of "eat or be eaten, define or be > > defined" does one want to achieve such an "overarching > > metaperspective" > > > > Michael Smith > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > => "I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ---------------------- henry sholar hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005