Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 19:17:47 +0100
Subject: Re: Quick reply




Eric, Judy and all

Whilst I agree that justice in its most general sense is perhaps 
difficult to define, in terms of jurisprudence and politics this is not 
the case. The differend between the diverse cases will always prove to 
be difficult to resolve. Consensus is difficult and in cases such as 
9/11 and its associated events impossible to resolve, consequently the 
politics of the day reduces the differences to a discussion of power and 
ultimately even of economics. This is inevitable given that it cannot be 
understood or discussed external to the surrounding socio-political events.

Politics is prescriptive , the institutions, or the instituting subject 
prescribes what is at stake in the given events and the prescriptive 
functions of the normalising subject, in the process aiming to proscribe 
what cannot be spoken of.  The socio-political subject aims to state 
what is the 'true being of society, and that societies will be just if 
it is conformity with this true...' socio-political existence. In a 
sense this is the debased form of the ethical subject of Levinas, 
however it also works for the un-ethical political subjects that are 
politicians in out societies.... Justice then is impossible because we 
start from a position of compromise. The decision related to 9/11 for 
example is one of real politics - the sentence to be passed on Bin-Laden 
will be derived from the specifics of the court of law it is tried in... 
Justice in this case would also require a complete social restructuring 
of the west...

regards

sdv

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>Judy wrote:
> 
> Prevention today justice tomorrow in this temporal order presupposes
>
>>certain meanings of these terms and not others, a certain phrase
>>universe, where I so far haven't been able to find a home.  I find
>>myself occupying one of those other genres, with presuppositions
>>incommensurable with that sequencing and distinguishing, or
>>prevention and justice, in which first must come justice, and the
>>result will be prevention.
>>
>>  alternatively, only with justice may there be hope of prevention,
>>creates a different universe, and that's where i find myself.
>>
>> From there i come with words like: to create what justice is, talk
>>and listen.  Cry out to the globe, "OK, what's up with this?   Why
>>did this happen?   Let's talk.  We want to stop the  killing.  How
>>join with all who want to stop the killing  and do our part?"
>>
>>i don't know what justice is, even locally and provisionally.  But
>>the discourse that shapes me, causes me to be the voice of certain
>>presuppositions, and has me saying ok, we need to talk.  We need some
>>answers that we don't have, we need them from you the attackers of us.
>>
>
>Judy,
>
>I like what you are saying here. I agree with you that the first step is
>recognizing we don't know what justice is.  Although it sounds like a
>heresy of sorts in a Lyotard group to say this, but it also seems to me
>more dialogue is needed.  
>
>As a Lyotardian, I would also be quick to point out that in this
>dialogue the various speakers may occupy differing positions of power
>and there is not a necessary tribunal to determine what the outcome
>should be, so we do need to proceed with caution. 
>
>However, I worry about those who think they know what justice is without
>ever bothering to discuss it first with their neighbors.
>
>If the story is true that 9/11 changes things, then maybe one of the
>things it changed is our very notion of justice. 
> 
>Perhaps, the most difficult task for America today is to recognize that
>one of the best ways to combat terrorism may be to re-examine its
>foreign policy and even that it isn't necessarily true that making
>changes only encourages future terrorists.  Paradoxically, it may be
>that making changes will encourage greater peace and less terrorism. 
>
>Those are some of the experiments and negotiations it seems we must be
>open to exploring and honest enough with ourselves to admit we don't
>come factory equipped with all the right answers, including those about
>justice. As William Blake put it: "one law for the ox and the lamb is
>oppression."
>
>As Levinas points out, the first part of justice is to recognize the
>other.  Perhaps the second is to listen and then to act in a way that
>exceeds the other's expectation.  
>
>eric
>
>

HTML VERSION:

Judy wrote:
 
 Prevention today justice tomorrow in this temporal order presupposes

certain meanings of these terms and not others, a certain phrase
universe, where I so far haven't been able to find a home.  I find
myself occupying one of those other genres, with presuppositions
incommensurable with that sequencing and distinguishing, or
prevention and justice, in which first must come justice, and the
result will be prevention.

  alternatively, only with justice may there be hope of prevention,
creates a different universe, and that's where i find myself.

 From there i come with words like: to create what justice is, talk
and listen.  Cry out to the globe, "OK, what's up with this?   Why
did this happen?   Let's talk.  We want to stop the  killing.  How
join with all who want to stop the killing  and do our part?"

i don't know what justice is, even locally and provisionally.  But
the discourse that shapes me, causes me to be the voice of certain
presuppositions, and has me saying ok, w
e need to talk.  We need some
answers that we don't have, we need them from you the attackers of us.

Judy,

I like what you are saying here. I agree with you that the first step is
recognizing we don't know what justice is.  Although it sounds like a
heresy of sorts in a Lyotard group to say this, but it also seems to me
more dialogue is needed.  

As a Lyotardian, I would also be quick to point out that in this
dialogue the various speakers may occupy differing positions of power
and there is not a necessary tribunal to determine what the outcome
should be, so we do need to proceed with caution. 

However, I worry about those who think they know what justice is without
ever bothering to discuss it first with their neighbors.

If the story is true that 9/11 changes things, then maybe one of the
things it changed is our very notion of justice. 
 
Perhaps, the most difficult task for America today is to recognize that
one of the best ways to combat terrorism may be to re-examine its
foreig
n policy and even that it isn't necessarily true that making
changes only encourages future terrorists.  Paradoxically, it may be
that making changes will encourage greater peace and less terrorism. 

Those are some of the experiments and negotiations it seems we must be
open to exploring and honest enough with ourselves to admit we don't
come factory equipped with all the right answers, including those about
justice. As William Blake put it: "one law for the ox and the lamb is
oppression."

As Levinas points out, the first part of justice is to recognize the
other.  Perhaps the second is to listen and then to act in a way that
exceeds the other's expectation.  

eric