in reverse order:
3. I don't think that your "evidence" to brought to support the case of
there being real real outside of "text" or discourse is very relevant. the
issue you raise -- royalties and "psycho" disabilities -- are LEGAL issues.
and quite clearly there is a DEFINED (however contested) system of rules
that regulate EXACTLY what counts as truth and what does not, what counts as
evidence and what does not. it is a system supported by a cultural belief
system that argues the existence of "actual" actualities, such as "the
past", "the naturalness of sex", "delusion", "the true person who is owed
the royalities and who thus must claim these on their tax forms" etc. the
argument about the socio fabrication of "actual pasts" positions such
systems (legal and its cultural foundation) precisely in question as not the
answer nor means to JUDGE the true of history.
2. you clearly believe that there is a difference between "what is" and
the necessarily contested "meanings" of that which "is". otherwise you would
not suggest that the legal proceedings can determine what an actual past was
(or those that are coded as criminal past activities) as distinct from its
meaning. in fact the process of law must indeed deal with meaning and judge
upon and fabricate meanings --- such as if the glove fits, then acquite
[sorry, *rough* parafrase :) ;)] -- and the answer to "what is" that is
legally determined is precisely the "meaning" of the juridical proceedings
that pass under the sociocultural/discursive designation "the FACTS of the
case" "the truth" etc. (although, with oj "we" as society seem to finally
begin to realize the radical separation between "facts" in the juridical
sense and "truth" as in what one believes in as the ultimate, actual really
real actuality of the past or present). i certainly do not believe that
what is and the meaning of what is are separable entities, since you
addressed malcolm, lets ask malcolm what he thinks....;)
1. hhm. uh, uhm. welll cannot remember the citations and thus i will
refrain from commenting but... uhm. well. there.
quetzil.
At 04:36 PM 4/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>
>Just two quick points to complement some of what has already been
>posted in response to Malcolm's frighteningly absolutist relativism.
>
>1. Surely the two citations from Foucault suggest that he, too,
>assumed that there was an 'actual past', that somehow can be
>associated with ('caused' deconstructed in the Humean sense of
>'habitually contiguous to') discursive practices. In my reading (see
>especially the essay called something like 'Politics of Health in the
>18th and 19th Centuries' [Power/Knowledge]), implicit in his history
>is a fairly traditional Marxist understanding of the motive force of
>economic interests. These underly all other changes. However, he
>simply is not concerned to elucidate the causal relations
>('primary realtions' in 'A of K', p. 43 [?]) between the 'extra-
>discursive' and discourse, in other words how formations come into
>being. He is more interested in how they work once they are
>established. Just because he does not elaborate on what CAUSES
>certain discursive configurations in certain historical contexts,
>does not mean he believes there is 'nothing outside the text', and
>that discourse can only be judged by political expediency and
>mobilising power. He is not as much a political nihilist as Malcolm
>seems to be.
>
>2. Evidence IS problematic, of course, just as it is when used in
>judicial proceedings. But, similarly, there is good evidence and bad
>evidence, and even evidence that can *prove* something (like a murder
>took place), even if it cannot reveal its meaning. There are also
>people who simply are deluded, and refuse to attend to evidence, not
>cynically or irrationally because it suits their politics not to, but
>because they are have the wrong take on reality. Now, I'm not saying
>this means they are *mad* (God help me on a Foucault list), but I am
>saying they are wrong, and for better reason than the majority, or
>the dominant group, arbitrarily defines their position as wrong.
>
>If a person was utterly and sincerely convinced that HE was Michel
>Foucault because of some psychiatric condition (however understood),
>what would Foucault have said? Especially when the man claimed his
>royalties?
>
>yours
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3. I don't think that your "evidence" to brought to support the case of
there being real real outside of "text" or discourse is very relevant. the
issue you raise -- royalties and "psycho" disabilities -- are LEGAL issues.
and quite clearly there is a DEFINED (however contested) system of rules
that regulate EXACTLY what counts as truth and what does not, what counts as
evidence and what does not. it is a system supported by a cultural belief
system that argues the existence of "actual" actualities, such as "the
past", "the naturalness of sex", "delusion", "the true person who is owed
the royalities and who thus must claim these on their tax forms" etc. the
argument about the socio fabrication of "actual pasts" positions such
systems (legal and its cultural foundation) precisely in question as not the
answer nor means to JUDGE the true of history.
2. you clearly believe that there is a difference between "what is" and
the necessarily contested "meanings" of that which "is". otherwise you would
not suggest that the legal proceedings can determine what an actual past was
(or those that are coded as criminal past activities) as distinct from its
meaning. in fact the process of law must indeed deal with meaning and judge
upon and fabricate meanings --- such as if the glove fits, then acquite
[sorry, *rough* parafrase :) ;)] -- and the answer to "what is" that is
legally determined is precisely the "meaning" of the juridical proceedings
that pass under the sociocultural/discursive designation "the FACTS of the
case" "the truth" etc. (although, with oj "we" as society seem to finally
begin to realize the radical separation between "facts" in the juridical
sense and "truth" as in what one believes in as the ultimate, actual really
real actuality of the past or present). i certainly do not believe that
what is and the meaning of what is are separable entities, since you
addressed malcolm, lets ask malcolm what he thinks....;)
1. hhm. uh, uhm. welll cannot remember the citations and thus i will
refrain from commenting but... uhm. well. there.
quetzil.
At 04:36 PM 4/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>
>Just two quick points to complement some of what has already been
>posted in response to Malcolm's frighteningly absolutist relativism.
>
>1. Surely the two citations from Foucault suggest that he, too,
>assumed that there was an 'actual past', that somehow can be
>associated with ('caused' deconstructed in the Humean sense of
>'habitually contiguous to') discursive practices. In my reading (see
>especially the essay called something like 'Politics of Health in the
>18th and 19th Centuries' [Power/Knowledge]), implicit in his history
>is a fairly traditional Marxist understanding of the motive force of
>economic interests. These underly all other changes. However, he
>simply is not concerned to elucidate the causal relations
>('primary realtions' in 'A of K', p. 43 [?]) between the 'extra-
>discursive' and discourse, in other words how formations come into
>being. He is more interested in how they work once they are
>established. Just because he does not elaborate on what CAUSES
>certain discursive configurations in certain historical contexts,
>does not mean he believes there is 'nothing outside the text', and
>that discourse can only be judged by political expediency and
>mobilising power. He is not as much a political nihilist as Malcolm
>seems to be.
>
>2. Evidence IS problematic, of course, just as it is when used in
>judicial proceedings. But, similarly, there is good evidence and bad
>evidence, and even evidence that can *prove* something (like a murder
>took place), even if it cannot reveal its meaning. There are also
>people who simply are deluded, and refuse to attend to evidence, not
>cynically or irrationally because it suits their politics not to, but
>because they are have the wrong take on reality. Now, I'm not saying
>this means they are *mad* (God help me on a Foucault list), but I am
>saying they are wrong, and for better reason than the majority, or
>the dominant group, arbitrarily defines their position as wrong.
>
>If a person was utterly and sincerely convinced that HE was Michel
>Foucault because of some psychiatric condition (however understood),
>what would Foucault have said? Especially when the man claimed his
>royalties?
>
>yours
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>