File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2000/foucault.0003, message 14


From: "Christopher Daly" <dalyjazz-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:51:51 EST


No offense taken kenneth.  What I was reacting to and somewhat what the 
original, somewhat sardonic, question about the imposs. of a perp. motion 
machine, was about was catch phrases and BIG empty words.  "Deontological 
framework" is another phrase that is offered in the hope that this might 
help us get our bearings by way of Kant or Rawls or some other big thinker 
or claim.  But really it is not a petulant stomping of my feet to complain 
about terminology or the barrenness of "theories" but rather an expression 
of frustration that there is always another way of putting or framing the 
question, any question.  One loses sight of the impulse from which discourse 
arises which is simply to know, live and enact the truth of one's life --  
or something like that.

But back to my original question, the reason I raised "ontic" considerations 
(maybe with a touch of glibness) is that there does seem to be an underlying 
assumption that we must trot out the arguments, at least one more time, if 
we are to get at the interlocking nexus of problems issues and interests.  I 
suppose this "deontological framework" is meant to preempt the endless 
cataloguing of interests and points of view but does it address the ontic 
and existential conditions upon which or under which such questions are 
raised?  I think there was a reference to Kosovo in the original message.  
Wasn't the point of the reference to say that we have ontic and existential 
conditions within which theoretical questions are raised.  Another way of 
putting this is to ask: Do we really want a perpetual motion machine of 
discourse?  Or perhaps another way of saying it is: Isn't the endlessness of 
our discussions a symptom of the nihilism that underlies the rationale that 
we must work out our differences through force, war and conflict?

So I'll ask another question with a positive slant: Since there is no 
closure in an absolute and temporal sense, what is the dynamic that we need 
to put into place institutionally, politically and interpersonally such that 
the "economy" of experience, both shared and individual, does not lead to 
grief but fruition of understanding and peace?


>From: Kenneth Johnson <kenn-AT-beef.sparks.nv.us>
>Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:31:31 -0800
>
> >> >why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?
> >>
> >>"it's the economy, stupid."
> >>
> >>
> >Whatever "economy" means.  (Another one of those big words that is more
> >evocative than informative.)
>===>
>Mr. Daly, I hope you didn't take this comment personally, I typed it simply
>as a humorous non-sequitur and didn't realize until I hit the send key that
>it could also be considered a reasonable response to the question itself -
>minus the last word.
>
>It's an old Presidential election quote, I think made against Dan Quayle by
>I don't remember who.
>
>If it came across wrong, I apologize!!!!
>kenneth
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005