Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:49:14 +0100
From: "steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: terrorism




Eric/Glen/All sitting here waiting to begin a series of inconsequential 
phone calls....

One of the lessons that we can learn from the tragic events of  the 
20thC is to recognise that it is much harder to understand the responses 
of ordinary people, who exist in terrible circumstances, than the mind 
and responses of  intellectuals and philosophers, I'm thinking of Hannah 
Arendt's responses to terror and evil. (Arendt because I've just read 
Kristeva's book on Arendt and been thinking of 'the banality of 
evil'...). During the past month i've realised, again, how far my 
responses are withdrawn from the everyday, the impossibility of return.

The inadequacy of all ethics. The philosophical point is the recognition 
of the criticality of contextualising the events and understanding them 
not in terms derived from terror or relating them back to previous 
terroristic events. For example the IRA bombing MacDonalds in London, 
the Japanese nerve gas in the subway or the fascist bombings in London 
during the 70s - but to recognise the differences and uniqueness of the 
events when extracted from the set of terrorism. Indeed the events of 
the world trade center are the start of a new 'set' and should not be 
incorporated into any prior set. (see Virillo in the landscape of events 
as well as the piece i posted recently). The state responses have all 
been derived from the ongoing development of globalisation and have 
heavily borrowed from colonialism.

Our responses to this should be founded on the recognition of the 
inadequacy of our ethics when dealing with terror and destruction. 'The 
human being is the one who can survive as a human being' as Primo Levi 
said of the experiences of humans in Auschwitz. The killing from a 
distence that the state is involved as I speak is resulting in a 
reduction of 'ourselves' to an alomst prtot-human state. The sheer 
inadequacy of ethics based on a relationship to the 'human other', as 
convincingly argued by Badiou and perhaps even more relevently by 
Giorgio Agamben. Agamben seems extremely relevant in the present because 
of his work on Auschwitz, most especially because of his use of the 
concept of bare life/naked life.... The state and the terrorist together 
both desire to strip us of our veneer of humanity and reduce us to our 
base naked state....

more later perhaps.
sdv

Fuller wrote:

>Hello,
>
>>Does philosophy, beyond the political, have anything to teach us about
>>how to overcome this terror?  Is there an ethics that is concerned not
>>merely with our duty towards the other, but with the realization of a
>>happiness that isn't merely a part of a non-zero sum game? (a happiness
>>that isn't in the end all about real estate.)
>>
>
>I was prompted by the above to think of Haraway's Situated Knowledges, which
>made me think of Badiou's Ethics.
>
>Placing the self as other, then going from there. Constructing a pragmatic
>hybrid subjectivity where the end goal is resolution, rather than
>perpetuation, rather than 'victory'. Is the most resolute solution the most
>'truthful'?
>
>The 'terror' at once made me aware of my corporality and who I was.
>Although, admittedly, I am more terrified of the reaction to the 'terror'
>than the 'terror' itself. I suppose if there are going to be nation-states,
>and democratic societies (read: elected leaders), then the boundaries have
>to be reinforced by force. Those lines of flight/fright are needed. Pun not
>intended.
>
>Glen.
>
>

HTML VERSION:

Hello,

Does philosophy, beyond the political, have anything to teach us about
how to overcome this terror?  Is there an ethics that is concerned not
merely with our duty towards the other, but with the realization of a
happiness that isn't merely a part of a non-zero sum game? (a happiness
that isn't in the end all about real estate.)

I was prompted by the above to think of Haraway's Situated Knowledges, which
made me think of Badiou's Ethics.

Placing the self as other, then going from there. Constructing a pragmatic
hybrid subjectivity where the end goal is resolution, rather than
perpetuation, rather than 'victory'. Is the most resolute solution the most
'truthful'?

The 'terror' at once made me aware of my corporality and who I was.
Although, admittedly, I am more terrified of the reaction to the 'terror'
than the 'terror' itself. I suppose if there are going to be nation-states,
and democratic societies (read: elected leaders), then the boundaries have
to be reinforced by force. Those lines of flight/fright are needed. Pun not
intended.

Glen.