Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:15:14 -0700 From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: methodology and the differend Judy, The book I referred to in a message I just posted, has a good description of the postmodern concept of the "Other", and a discussion of a novel, "The Painted Bird", by Jerzy Kosinski, covers your points about imputed motives in a very dramatic way. The "other" has been for me a very nebulous term, but your examples make it more concrete. Hugh ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6 > >Motives, intentions, beliefs? Don't we all have them? And what could > >be more real....fear, pain, hunger, sex? > > Yes. Talking about them this way is unproblematic. But when they are used > to prove a ontological point, things can get muddled and diverted. For > example, "You are saying that because you feel threatened," or "What you > really mean is, you are prejudiced against people like that," or "You are > trying to avoid the issue." It seems fairly common usage when arguing over > what is true, to find phrases in which motives are imputed to the other in > characterizing the discourse they voice, as a kind of ammunition for > invalidating what is being said, for silencing or putting the other on the > defensive. I think such imputing of motives is related to what Lyotard > critiques as anthropomorphization, as if the discourses stem from the > individual personal psychology of the addressor rather than representing > genres with lives of their own, independent of (and even contrary to) the > motives of the (often hapless) people involved. > > Judy
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005