> From: Karl Carlile <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:02:42 +0000
> Subject: THE BODY
> Priority: normal
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Diane:
>
> It is not possible to conceive or experience the human body
> independently of human reality. All reality is human.
The eco-philosophers and the eco-theologians will be of a quite
different opinion: Reality can not exclusively be viewed
human-centred. The human- being is not the peak or centre of nature,
man is inserted into the bio-spehere like the fish, and all the other
creature are. How can you then say that all reality is human.
Consider the wide-ranging debate : Does nature have rights .e.g
Roderick Nash: The rights of nature.
> To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
> matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
> most serves an ideological function.
I can be reasoning consider that the human body is imbedded in
nature- then it should be possible to consider the human body from
that angle.
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
> > Colin:
> >
> > Butler doesn't say there is no materiality of the body. She simply notes
> > that no matter how hard we try to get at it, we won't succeed. If there
> > is a material body that PRECEDES discursive appropriation, we cannot
> > know it. This is why some bodies end up mattering more than others. The
> > point here is not to say 'oh, gee, there's only language and nothing
> > else.' It's to say that we can't have the thing in itself...not even
> > the body in itself. Even the matierality of the body--as we can know
> > it--has a history. We will have always already, to use a
> > heideggerianism, "thinged the thing." To assume that you can get at the
> > thing in itself is to ... well, as you say, assume the status of a god.
> >
> > Butler does not. She's no humanist. She's a negotiator.
>
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:02:42 +0000
> Subject: THE BODY
> Priority: normal
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Diane:
>
> It is not possible to conceive or experience the human body
> independently of human reality. All reality is human.
The eco-philosophers and the eco-theologians will be of a quite
different opinion: Reality can not exclusively be viewed
human-centred. The human- being is not the peak or centre of nature,
man is inserted into the bio-spehere like the fish, and all the other
creature are. How can you then say that all reality is human.
Consider the wide-ranging debate : Does nature have rights .e.g
Roderick Nash: The rights of nature.
> To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
> matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
> most serves an ideological function.
I can be reasoning consider that the human body is imbedded in
nature- then it should be possible to consider the human body from
that angle.
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
> > Colin:
> >
> > Butler doesn't say there is no materiality of the body. She simply notes
> > that no matter how hard we try to get at it, we won't succeed. If there
> > is a material body that PRECEDES discursive appropriation, we cannot
> > know it. This is why some bodies end up mattering more than others. The
> > point here is not to say 'oh, gee, there's only language and nothing
> > else.' It's to say that we can't have the thing in itself...not even
> > the body in itself. Even the matierality of the body--as we can know
> > it--has a history. We will have always already, to use a
> > heideggerianism, "thinged the thing." To assume that you can get at the
> > thing in itself is to ... well, as you say, assume the status of a god.
> >
> > Butler does not. She's no humanist. She's a negotiator.
>
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>