Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:57:02 +1000 From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> Subject: Re: Fear. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_zOd94hPUtZ7HDQXtBmu20A) All, In these discussions, a review of dictionary meanings is sometimes helpful, although only a starting point for clarifying the personal defintions that inform the words we write. In the context of globalization and last weeks global demonstrations, I think of Transnational Corporations who use WTO, World Bank and other devices to transcend the laws of nominally "democratic" nation-states. Within the U.S, Republicrats, Corporations and their lobbyists and campaign contributors, routinely achieve control of elections and laws. That control is essentially the standared definition of "plutocracy": PLUTOCRACY - A political system governed by the wealthy people. Compare with other system definitions: DEMOCRACY - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them THEOCRACY - A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided). ANARCHY - A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government ~^*^~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^^~*^~*~*~^~^*~*~^*^~^~*~~^*~*~^* Shawn wrote: > I'm curious. If we do not acknowledge a basic difference in the economies > of "obedience to [explicit] law" + "fear of the lord" and "the law of > love," > then where, in terms of very practical critique, does that leave us? The > conflation is useful if you want to lump all "religions of the book," but > such talk of "tendencies" is simply ahistorical, and ignores essentially > all > of the conflict within the "western moral tradition." You end up in the > position of claiming that very progressive social practices have been > covertly "reactionary" because of some tendency (which they may even > have been quite explicitly working against.) > > I'm thinking, for example, of Mayor Samuel Milton "Golden Rule" Jones, > of Toledo, OH, and very practically successful politician who, the record > suggests, was far more progressive that most of the Progressives of his > era, precisely because he paid close attention to the differences between > these two economies of "law." > > As an anarchist, it naturally warms my heart to hear folks claim that > obedience > to law is inherently reactionary. I even agree, within limits of how we > define > "law." But anarchism's specific form of the "what is to be done?" question > revolves precisely around how the necessary functions of social > organization > are to be differentiated from "law" and "government." I won't pretend to > answer those questions, though i have some strong opinions. However, > one of those opinions i will advance is that only close attention to the > fine > dynamics of systems will bring anything like illumination. Isn't it, for > instance > the case that "original sin" is far from a uniform factor even within > "Christian" > practice - and that plenty of secular philosophies include some attention > to > the internal division of human beings which has much the same function? > > -shawn > > Eric wrote: > > > All, > > > > Let me say first of all I thought Geof's position was rather eloquently > > stated. I want to chime in, however, in favor of Steve's comment that > > Levinas is reactionary. Perhaps, Geof is right about Levinas being hard > > to put into politics terms because his ethics is concerned with a > > mirco-level face-to-face basis regarding the other. I think it is still > > possible to raise the issue that Levinas does not really break with the > > moral tradition of the west, he simply finds new ways to defend it, and > > therefore the core of his ethics remains conservative and even > > reactionary. > > > > Certainly, at the heart of this western tradition there lies the notion > > of original sin - the self left to own device becomes evil. This self > > must always be subjugated through the law in order to be saved. When > > this is done, the worship of god and the respect for the neighbor are > > seen as the primary ends of ethics. > > > > Jewish tradition obeys the Torah; Christianity discards the rules of > > kosher and ritual purification, but still maintains the law of love. One > > of the ways this break is characterized (usually by Christians) is that > > the old law is based upon 'fear of the lord' where god is seen as a > > being who is wrathful and quick to anger. Nonetheless, this fear is > > useful insofar as it teaches humility, the repentance to sin in sack > > cloth and ashes. Christianity usually claims this fear must be overcome > > by love and posits a new, more intimate relationship with god - Jesus is > > my friend. This kind of tenderness seems to be related closely to the > > kind of positive fear that Geof was invoking. Levinas is interesting > > because he rewrites this tradition in a way that stands Christianity on > > its head and tends to validate the Jewish tradition from facile and > > empty criticisms. > > > > The problem with all this, however, is that this disowned self under > > both the Jewish and Christian traditions tends to be very negative. In > > the Lacan-Badiou sense it gives up on desire. The western tradition > > strongly advocates making the self at best, passive and at worst, > > masochistic. > > > > Feminists have usually critiqued this kind of ethics as follows. It > > tends to idealize service and for women, roles such as being a mother, > > teacher, nurse, nun, - the so-called caretaker and nurturing roles are > > valorized. Certainly these are concerned with the ethics of the other, > > but in a way that tends to limit the woman herself. If a woman chooses > > to become something else, such as an artist, writer, athlete these roles > > tend to be seen as somehow suspect and less than the ideal. Such a > > woman may be described by religious judgment as being selfish when she > > was really being ethical. > > > > Without going into the details, I think it is fairly obvious that > > Levinas never really breaks with any of this basic orientation in his > > ethics. He always tends to disavow the self (chez soi) versus the face > > of the other. In his system, alterity always trumps desire. > > > > In this sense, Badiou is more modern and more political in his approach. > > Instead of the traditional self-other axis, his is an immortal-animal > > axis which is guided by truth rather than god as the ultimate source of > > its ethics. This may be seen as contra-natural in the sense that > > ontology-sets-difference-being are in some sense natural. It is not, > > however, concerned with the care of self, but rather with the event of > > truth. Who we ultimately become stems from this break; this encounter. > > > > In this way, ethics are always political in their import. > > > > eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Don Socha > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:23 PM > > To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > Subject: Re: Fear. > > > > >G/all > > > > > >I had thought of the Levinas angle but discarded it, for > > myself at > > >least, because of my rejection of his ethics. Beyond the > > critique of > > >Levinas by Badiou, there is something deeply reactionary in > > statements > > >such as "...Ethics is, therefore, against nature because it > > forbids the > > >murderousness of my natural will to put my own existence > > first..." > > > > > > > > >regards > > >steve > > > > I don't see what's necessarily reactionary about this > > position, Steve. Surely you don't mean to suggest that > > Levinas is anything like a biological determinist. Though I > > don't want to overlook the always difficult context of his > > work, isn't he simply saying that while nature is > > indifferent, people need not be fatalistic? > > > > I've yet to read Badiou (plan to begin this week), but > > doesn't Levinas mean something quite distinct when he > > says "against nature"? I do know he wasn't in favor of > > putting his own existence first... rather, his whole ouvre > > stands against precisely this. > > > > Or do you see ethics as something other than an artificial > > means by which better versions of ourselves might be > > explored? > > > > Don Socha > --Boundary_(ID_zOd94hPUtZ7HDQXtBmu20A)
HTML VERSION: