Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:22:57 +0000 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: Postmodern Religion Shawn tomorrow... it's late personal relationships call steve shawn wilbur wrote: >Steve, > >Could you point to some examples of this "defense of the authentic"? There >is more here that needs addressing, but it would be useful at the outset to >see >what aiming at with this distinction. > >-shawn > >"steve.devos" wrote: > > > >>Eric >>a brief reply...Of course - the 'difference' between us is and I think >>the reason why we 'communicate' and 'miscommunicate' both internally to >>the Lyotard list but also externally is precisely this difference... >> >>"Even those who acknowledge this direct lineage from chritianity to >>marxism, however usually fetishize the early authentic followers of >>christ against the church's institutionalization epitimised by the name >>of st paul: yes to christs 'original authentic message' no to its >>transformation into the body of teaching that legitimises the church as >>a social institution. What these followers of the maxim ... do is >>strictly parallel to the stance of those humanist marxists from the mid >>20th c (Lyotard included prior to his conversion) whose maxim was 'yes >>to the early authentic marxx, no to his lentist ossification. And in >>both cases, one should insist that such a 'defence of the authentic' is >>most perfidious mode of its betrayal: there is no christ outside st >>paul; in exactly the same wau; there is no suthentic marx that can be >>approached directly, bypassing Lenin..." (Zizek The fragile absolute.) >> >> > > >
HTML VERSION:
Steve, Could you point to some examples of this "defense of the authentic"? There is more here that needs addressing, but it would be useful at the outset to see what aiming at with this distinction. -shawn "steve.devos" wrote:Eric a brief reply...Of course - the 'difference' between us is and I think the reason why we 'communicate' and 'miscommunicate' both internally to the Lyotard list but also externally is precisely this difference... "Even those who acknowledge this direct lineage from chritianity to marxism, however usually fetishize the early authentic followers of christ against the church's institutionalization epitimised by the name of st paul: yes to christs 'original authentic message' no to its transformation into the body of teaching that legitimises the church as a social institution. What these followers of the maxim ... do is strictly parallel to the stance of those humanist marxists from the mid 20th c (Lyotard included prior to his conversion) whose maxim was 'yes to the early authentic marxx, no to his lentist ossification. And in both cases, one should insist that such a 'defence of the authentic' is most perfidious mode of its betrayal: there is no christ outside st paul; in exactly the same wau; there is no suthentic marx that can be approached directly, bypassing Lenin..." (Zizek The fragile absolute.)