File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2001/foucault.0102, message 72


From: Vunch-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:35:59 EST
Subject: Re: Is Juan Cruz a Homosexual himself? - homophobia



--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary

In a message dated 2/1/01 11:25:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rhizome85-AT-home.com writes:


> You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why" 
> repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to demonstrate 
> the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past 
> all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that 
> corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility 
> of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the representationalist 
> project. Rather than continue to search for a correspondence between the 
> 

There are two types of situations that we encounter in relation to the 
rightness of our actions.  In the first situation, our action (by that I mean 
our intentional action)
either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our 
representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or are 
not in agreement.

In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the 
law come under norms about which other people may disagree.  (Some people 
consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed 
upon as laws can actually be law.)  We might consider the situation to be 
that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe preferred 
ways of living life.  Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions 
are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the 
law.

The tension often results in the context of freedom where people are free to 
critisize others who are free to live their life as they choose, so long as 
their actions are not violations of the law.  Of course, the validity of the 
law is at all times in question which is why law develops and changes... 
claim and comment, argument and counterargument, legislative accord on new 
laws, etc... By definition, all laws refer to public behavior; if a behavior 
is illegal it is public behavior.  But, the real tension begins within the 
private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the 
question, "How shall I live?"  Each person's answer may or may not accord 
with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.

Vunch

--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary

HTML VERSION:

In a message dated 2/1/01 11:25:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rhizome85-AT-home.com writes:


You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why"
repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to demonstrate
the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past
all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that
corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility
of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the representationalist
project. Rather than continue to search for a correspondence between the
real thing and your image of it, why not stop the search?


There are two types of situations that we encounter in relation to the
rightness of our actions.  In the first situation, our action (by that I mean
our intentional action)
either accords with the Law or it does not and it is plain that our
representation of the Law and the objectivity of our action either are or are
not in agreement.

In the second situation, all of our actions which are not prescribed by the
law come under norms about which other people may disagree.  (Some people
consider laws norms and norms as laws, but only valid norms that are agreed
upon as laws can actually be law.)  We might consider the situation to be
that the law limits our actions, but that norms actually prescribe preferred
ways of living life.  Some actions are prohibited by the law, other actions
are considered inappropriate by other people, but are not prescribed by the
law.

The tension often results in the context of freedom where people are free to
critisize others who are free to live their life as they choose, so long as
their actions are not violations of the law.  Of course, the validity of the
law is at all times in question which is why law develops and changes...
claim and comment, argument and counterargument, legislative accord on new
laws, etc... By definition, all laws refer to public behavior; if a behavior
is illegal it is public behavior.  But, the real tension begins within the
private realm when each individual asks and answers for him/herself the
question, "How shall I live?"  Each person's answer may or may not accord
with others who are emotionally outraged and hence enter into conflict.

Vunch
--part1_3d.6ef8773.27acac6f_boundary--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005