Subject: Re: Ethics as a Figure of Nihilism (Gone to the dogs)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:58:36 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Hugh! I am in full agreement!

Then the nature of the course of action taken by the Aussie Dog, lets say a Dingo, is dependent on its intent? Simulacra-reactionary intent: a possible real threat (not a real possible threat) of some tail wagging nastiness. Or a lack of perseverence: simply sick of being scared. Yes the TV-media the Dingo was watching sent it into a patriotic dog frenzy, coming up with the axiom, It's our tails or it's our tails. :)

This course of action could be regarded (simply) as instinctual, or as planned. If we are taking the Cartesian line on rationality (of Dog consciousness), then they are planned, or constructed. Or at least, as I suggest Badiou argues, the mechanism for producing the mechanism that produces the (re)action is constructed. So there is some planning, which leads to the construction of the (re)action, which is then performed. So the intent is important when deciphering the performance of the (re)action (of the Dingo, from an owner-r-US point of view:)?

The ethics of the nation state I meant were of some sort of Kantian Duty, I was confused by this duty (to whatever the sate represents, including 'interests') vs the interests (of whatever the sate represents, including 'duty') but, yes, an abstract individualistic negation (on the level of the state) of the validity of the discourses of 'ethics' for the sake of self interest is a liberalist evil.

And, Hugh, I thought you would like Badiou's critique of 'parliamentary democracy' too. As he sees it to be (very bluntly paraphrasing) the whoring of power to interest.

Glen.
  What if the Australian dog couldn't decide whether the tail was with or against him, and attacked it not because of terror, only stress and confusion?

  The ethical axiom is "with us or against us" The 911 incident of thousands of deaths enlivens the five words which mean the superpower will use superforce. 

  The "State" normally pursues its own interests, call them ethics if you wish.
   It is self-defining and self-authorizing in these historic situations, declaring wars, dropping bombs etc.  Today the President will tell the United Nations about the great service the U.S. is rendering nearly 200 other States.

  The politicos who make the decisions normally represent those interests whose money put them into their positions of power, but at this unusual moment of history there is a nation-wide outburst of emotion, and the leader can ride this wave to great acclaim. For a while. '

HTML VERSION:

What if the Australian dog couldn't decide whether the tail was with or against him, and attacked it not because of terror, only stress and confusion?

 

The ethical axiom is "with us or against us" The 911 incident of thousands of deaths enlivens the five words which mean the superpower will use superforce. 

 

The "State" normally pursues its own interests, call them ethics if you wish. 

 It is self-defining and self-authorizing in these historic situations, declaring wars, dropping bombs etc.  Today the President will tell the United Nations about the great service the U.S. is rendering nearly 200 other States.

 

The politicos who make the decisions normally represent those interests whose money put them into their positions of power, but at this unusual moment of history there is a nation-wide outburst of emotion, and the leader can ride this wave to great acclaim. For a while. '