File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0206, message 69


Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:52:03 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: How many happenings to break 4 silences?


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_u/mWj+kZJ2+NWopOCAIh4A)

Glen,

I follow and to some extent agree with your thoughts.  The bereaved are victims. They suffer.  IMHO their community(s) have an "obligation" to seek justice, and to aid them although their emotional loss has no remedy..
  The dead, like God, are referents in memories of the living.  Eventually, their "existence" as referents, is forgotten.  In Le Havre, France I saw the names of about 5000 civilians dead from "collateral damage" of WWII.  The names were carved into a single stone monument.  I expect many persons in that city, who are now more than 60 years old, have memories of some of those named on the monument .. But in another 60 years living memories will disappear although, hopefully the monument will remain as will some photos and letters in family histories.


  Hugh,
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
  You write:
   
   can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.
   
  -----------------
  I agree with you to some extent, however I would argue there is nothing 'simple' about (re)constructing 'victims' as 'murdered human beings'. 'Murder' and the 'human' do not have the simplicity of definitive meanings. One persons murder is another persons casuality, etc, etc. To reduce them to being murdered human beings is to efface one side of the differend, even though such an act may aid the 'victim'.
   
  However, I do agree with your final remark regarding justice not being an issue for the dead. So if justice is not for the dead, but justice is for victims, then who is the 'victim'? And if the differend is encountered in the pursuit of 'justice', then who is really seeking out justice?
   
  Perhaps it is (to get all cynical;) a case of the dead not being able to contest in the resolution of difference over their place as referents (as murdered human beings or casualties or whatever). 
   
  The dead do exist and are very 'real' (in the sense that they can 'exist' as referents, errr, kind of how 'God' can exist...)
   
  Justice would be for those 'affected' by how the dead are represented as referents, and part of that is the act of seeking out 'justice,' which may not be an encountering of the differend (an event). That is, before the differend of the phrase universe can be encountered, reality must be performed, or demonstrated, so that the differend can exist, part of that reality is of 'victims' requiring 'justice'. So my question is: who is the 'victim'?
   
  Glen.      

--Boundary_(ID_u/mWj+kZJ2+NWopOCAIh4A)

HTML VERSION:

Glen,
 
I follow and to some extent agree with your thoughts.  The bereaved are victims. They suffer.  IMHO their community(s) have an "obligation" to seek justice, and to aid them although their emotional loss has no remedy..
The dead, like God, are referents in memories of the living.  Eventually, their "existence" as referents, is forgotten.  In Le Havre, France I saw the names of about 5000 civilians dead from "collateral damage" of WWII.  The names were carved into a single stone monument.  I expect many persons in that city, who are now more than 60 years old, have memories of some of those named on the monument .. But in another 60 years living memories will disappear although, hopefully the monument will remain as will some photos and letters in family histories.
 
 
Hugh,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
You write:
 
 can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.
 
-----------------
I agree with you to some extent, however I would argue there is nothing 'simple' about (re)constructing 'victims' as 'murdered human beings'. 'Murder' and the 'human' do not have the simplicity of definitive meanings. One persons murder is another persons casuality, etc, etc. To reduce them to being murdered human beings is to efface one side of the differend, even though such an act may aid the 'victim'.
 
However, I do agree with your final remark regarding justice not being an issue for the dead. So if justice is not for the dead, but justice is for victims, then who is the 'victim'? And if the differend is encountered in the pursuit of 'justice', then who is really seeking out justice?
 
Perhaps it is (to get all cynical;) a case of the dead not being able to contest in the resolution of difference over their place as referents (as murdered human beings or casualties or whatever).
 
The dead do exist and are very 'real' (in the sense that they can 'exist' as referents, errr, kind of how 'God' can exist...)
 
Justice would be for those 'affected' by how the dead are represented as referents, and part of that is the act of seeking out 'justice,' which may not be an encountering of the differend (an event). That is, before the differend of the phrase universe can be encountered, reality must be performed, or demonstrated, so that the differend can exist, part of that reality is of 'victims' requiring 'justice'. So my question is: who is the 'victim'?
 
Glen.      
--Boundary_(ID_u/mWj+kZJ2+NWopOCAIh4A)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005