File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9709, message 41


Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 14:04:54 -0400
From: Brian Connery <connery-AT-Oakland.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC:Canetti's Lion


I'm following all this with interest, but can participate only minimally
just now.  Nevertheless, here's a quick thought based on the following:

>"This seems rather silly to me.  The sign bespeaks intent.  It is an agent 
>that produces the Uzi.  An Uzi in a glass display case is not an 
>immediate threat, an Uzi in the hand is.  We are not chickens and can 
>distinguish, in most cases, the real Uzi as a sign of threatening 
>*intent* from a picture that does not signify a threat."
>
>As silly as it might sound I would ask which has more immediate power -- the
>gun, which we can *know* ,or the intent, which we cannot. It is the power of
>the symbol, object, projection, word, act, event Etc. that establishes the
>authority. 

Authority strikes me as most clearly itself when the gun is put away.
Authority, as Saicho indicated early on, always gestures towards an
antecedant authorizing agent and/or event--"by the authority invested in me
. . ."--but the agent is, in fact, absent.  If the formerly gun-toting
generalissimo can gain the assent of his followers after the guns are
locked up, then he or she has achieved authority.  If not, not.  Same with
rational persuasion: if someone has repeatedly demonstrated her wisdom
through rational argument such that she no longer has to argue in order to
gain assent, she has achieved authority.  If her audience continues to ask
for reasons and explanation, she hasn't.

So, I'm with Saicho on this one.  The authority figure is, generally, a
sign for the source of the authority that isn't present.

Best,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian Connery
connery-AT-oakland.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005