File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0305, message 26


Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:08:32 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: love and difference - feeling, reacting


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g)

Steve,

1) For some reason your story reminds me of the book, "White Teeth".

2) Although I basically accept your decision theory, I think the mind-brain is a physical 
bio-instrument which, like a computer, is an input-output device.  

Twenty-plus years of  living brain-history is the basis of a PhD's mentality, including the ability to decide.  

One is one's memories and without them, has the lack of cognitive ability typified by a victim of  terminal  Alzheimers. 

One decides, what one's history presents and what the "mind" executes..   Somthing in computer memory responds to the appropriate stimulus.  Same with brain.

regards,
Hugh




  Hugh

  The issue is a political one - related to social and economic class. Just because you are born into a particular class position does not mean that you have to inherit the most reactionary moments of that class position. The queen effectively chose those positions - over a long lifetime they were and are her 'personal' class positions. Back in the 1930s - when the british state for it's own reactionary class reasons decided not to support the Spanish Republican govenment it arguably condemmed the world to an appalling war, at that point the british monarchy like the british ruling class made an unfortunate choice - the point being that whilst we are determined by our social and class positions we do have the power to make choices.

  Yesterday on TV there was a short and enlightening film about a British Sikh family - the usual sad reactionary religious/cultural issues showing the ongoing death of a horrible set of cultural values as there children and changed by existing in a more secular society - however what was interesting was their presumption that because a young woman had run away from her forced marraige (they called it arranged) and had dissapeared from her marriage, her paternal family that she was dead. Watching it I realised that she had probably gone to one of the asian women's refuges perhaps in souhall or brixton... and has now reconstructed her life...


  regards
  steve



  hbone wrote:

    Steve/All,
    Yes, we cry for different things. To each his/her own.
    I don't conceive of genetic or legal inheritance as a choice.If so, all would choose to be rich, powerful, beautiful, magnanimous......whatever.

    A few years ago I read about the Bush-Fascist connectionyou mention, on the Internet,
    It sounded authentic. I'm inclined to believe it. I suppose books are available with details, for those who want them. Even God cannot change the past, but sometimes mere mortals may profit from it.
    ~*^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^~^*~^~^~*~^*~^*

    >Hugh

    >It's a matter of choosing sides. Things are actually much more black and white than you >appear to want them to be...

    >To inherit a role whether it is 'queen' or as in Bush's case the inheritence of money from >a grand farther who should have gone to jail for supporting and making mloney from the >German Fascists... is also a choice. Even if, and i will allow this much, she was >constructed and oppressed in the process of becoming 'queen' just as I would accept >that any women can be seen to be oppressed by the social-religious environment they >live in. 

    >Nonetheless her death will not cause me tears or anger, unlike say the looting of the >Baghdad museum caused by your fellow countryman...


    >steve
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    hbone wrote:

    Steve,

    There have always been people who laugh at others' grief and pain, and I'm
    surprised you admit such laughs.

    If its part of your inheritance, the way you were taught, the ethics you
    have absorbed,
    the friends you have, the life you live, I don't agree with your views, but
    respect your right to express them.

    regards,
    Hugh








    laughs - would like to think so - but really how can anyone respect
    inheritence like this...

    s

    hbone wrote:


    Steve/Geof/All,

    The Queen, and all the rest us us, like yourself and other readers of the
    pomo-French and neo-Marxists persuasions, has IMHO, known love and grief.

    Like us, I would assume she chooses words, of speechwriters or anyone

    else,

    which resonate with her own experience in loving and losing, in grieving,
    sharing and attempting to console those who mourn.

    I think everyone is entitled to their own emotions, even if they have

    lead

    the sheltered lives of royalty. The Queen, being older than most of us,
    has likely experienced more love and grief.

    Women on the List may feel and express difference(s) from what we males
    have written.

    I wouldn't despise the words of a professional writer, Shakespeare, for
    example, or a chair-holding philosopher just because they have more
    advantages, more money, more fame and attention than you or I.

    All of us are sovereigns of our own feelings, loves and griefs. Others

    have

    only secondhand knowledge gleaned through our words and other languages

    of

    the senses and the arts.

    I think first-person feelings/emotions are the basis of what Lyotard

    called

    the "social bond" and that bonding and loving is the basis of community

    and

    humanity.

    And finally, the basis of a dream or vision of a better society.

    regards,
    Hugh





    I




    It wasn't the queen of england - but a professional writer - she is
    merely a rather sad actor who has been constructed to repeat words and
    feelings...












--Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g)

HTML VERSION:

=EF=BB=BF
Steve,
 
1) For some reason your story reminds me of the book, "White Teeth".
 
2) Although I basically accept your decision theory, I think the mind-brain is a physical
bio-instrument which, like a computer, is an input-output device. 
 
Twenty-plus years of  living brain-history is the basis of a PhD's mentality, including the ability to decide. 
 
One is one's memories and without them, has the lack of cognitive ability typified by a victim of  terminal  Alzheimers.
 
One decides, what one's history presents and what the "mind" executes..   Somthing in computer memory responds to the appropriate stimulus.  Same with brain.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
 

Hugh

The issue is a political one - related to social and economic class. Just because you are born into a particular class position does not mean that you have to inherit the most reactionary moments of that class position. The queen effectively chose those positions - over a long lifetime they were and are her 'personal' class positions. Back in the 1930s - when the british state for it's own reactionary class reasons decided not to support the Spanish Republican govenment it arguably condemmed the world to an appalling war, at that point the british monarchy like the british ruling class made an unfortunate choice - the point being that whilst we are determined by our social and class positions we do have the power to make choices.

Yesterday on TV there was a short and enlightening film about a British Sikh family - the usual sad reactionary religious/cultural issues showing the ongoing death of a horrible set of cultural values as there children and changed by existing in a more secular society - however what was interesting was their presumption that because a young woman had run away from her forced marraige (they called it arranged) and had dissapeared from her marriage, her paternal family that she was dead. Watching it I realised that she had probably gone to one of the asian women's refuges perhaps in souhall or brixton... and has now reconstructed her life...


regards
steve



hbone wrote:
Steve/All,
Yes, we cry for different things. To each his/her own.
I don't conceive of genetic or legal inheritance as a choice.If so, all would choose to be rich, powerful, beautiful, magnanimous......whatever.

A few years ago I read about the Bush-Fascist connectionyou mention, on the Internet,
It sounded authentic. I'm inclined to believe it. I suppose books are available with details, for those who want them. Even God cannot change the past, but sometimes mere mortals may profit from it.
~*^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^~^*~^~^~*~^*~^*
>Hugh

>It's a matter of choosing sides. Things are actually much more black and white than you >appear to want them to be...

>To inherit a role whether it is 'queen' or as in Bush's case the inheritence of money from >a grand farther who should have gone to jail for supporting and making mloney from the >German Fascists... is also a choice. Even if, and i will allow this much, she was >constructed and oppressed in the process of becoming 'queen' just as I would accept >that any women can be seen to be oppressed by the social-religious environment they >live in.

>Nonetheless her death will not cause me tears or anger, unlike say the looting of the >Baghdad museum caused by your fellow countryman...


>steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hbone wrote:

Steve,

There have always been people who laugh at others' grief and pain, and I'm
surprised you admit such laughs.

If its part of your inheritance, the way you were taught, the ethics you
have absorbed,
the friends you have, the life you live, I don't agree with your views, but
respect your right to express them.

regards,
Hugh








laughs - would like to think so - but really how can anyone respect
inheritence like this...

s

hbone wrote:


Steve/Geof/All,

The Queen, and all the rest us us, like yourself and other readers of the
pomo-French and neo-Marxists persuasions, has IMHO, known love and grief.

Like us, I would assume she chooses words, of speechwriters or anyone

else,

which resonate with her own experience in loving and losing, in grieving,
sharing and attempting to console those who mourn.

I think everyone is entitled to their own emotions, even if they have

lead

the sheltered lives of royalty. The Queen, being older than most of us,
has likely experienced more love and grief.

Women on the List may feel and express difference(s) from what we males
have written.

I wouldn't despise the words of a professional writer, Shakespeare, for
example, or a chair-holding philosopher just because they have more
advantages, more money, more fame and attention than you or I.

All of us are sovereigns of our own feelings, loves and griefs. Others

have

only secondhand knowledge gleaned through our words and other languages

of

the senses and the arts.

I think first-person feelings/emotions are the basis of what Lyotard

called

the "social bond" and that bonding and loving is the basis of community

and

humanity.

And finally, the basis of a dream or vision of a better society.

regards,
Hugh





I




It wasn't the queen of england - but a professional writer - she is
merely a rather sad actor who has been constructed to repeat words and
feelings...










--Boundary_(ID_aM81GVNak6DAh3YPgxSR0g)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005