Sean!
You've put that quite nicely. Thanks for
taking the time to get into it so well. I
should have formed my thoughts more
clearly this morning. However, I did not
then have the fuller sense of these differences
that I have now. I was merely close. For me
you could exchange the words ob/sub jective
in every case I've ever heard them, just so one
knows the oppositional context so as to identify
when one is playing against the other. They
could just as well be A's and B's to me.
I think the problem I have lies in this:
What we think of as the subject is you,
but you are an object to yourself; but, what
is subjective is your experience, and you try
getting beyond this by making it objective.
(I'm not agreeing with this, by the way, it's
just how it normally goes, I think.) You're
a subject of the state in feudal times, but
in modern times you can be seen as just
another object floating about within democratic
processes....an individualized thing.
ETC.
So, when we are tossing these terms around,
I get confused. However, I can understand
what is being said by statements such as,
"When you have a subjective experience
it may identify the object of your desires, yet,
your object is to be yourself even if certain
desires make you an object of commercial
concerns. So, to believe that you want something
just because you want it would be a rather
subjective claim." All of these uses are in sharp
opposition.
The problem I have is when someone like O'neill,
who wrote the book "Five Bodies" refers to a
Foucault's conception of the modern body as
a "docile subject." If I am correct, this is a distinct
misuse of Foucault? The docile body is an
individualized object, right? It might be constructed
as a subject to disciplinary powers and
commericalism, but.... hmmmm, dinner time for me
too.... Anyway, you get the idea here. I obviously
need to do some more reading!
I sense I have this straight, but I don't KNOW
it well enough to really have it down. It's still all
frothing in my cappucino head. In fact, now that
I've nearly finished this day, I realize that I am
still not yet recuperated from the semster! Perhaps
a beer or two..... (Geez, you'd think I'm an alcoholic
the way I keep mentioning the stuff as of late! ;)
It's just the sea hardened sojourner in me, though.
Plus, I'm a Wisconsinite and it's snowing. What else
am I to do?
Cheers!
Eric Nelson Shook mailto:enshook@xxxxxxxxxxx
Student of Philosophy & Cultural Anthropology
"Alienation hasn't enough sense to deliberate
over circumstances. It has no sense of humor."
You've put that quite nicely. Thanks for
taking the time to get into it so well. I
should have formed my thoughts more
clearly this morning. However, I did not
then have the fuller sense of these differences
that I have now. I was merely close. For me
you could exchange the words ob/sub jective
in every case I've ever heard them, just so one
knows the oppositional context so as to identify
when one is playing against the other. They
could just as well be A's and B's to me.
I think the problem I have lies in this:
What we think of as the subject is you,
but you are an object to yourself; but, what
is subjective is your experience, and you try
getting beyond this by making it objective.
(I'm not agreeing with this, by the way, it's
just how it normally goes, I think.) You're
a subject of the state in feudal times, but
in modern times you can be seen as just
another object floating about within democratic
processes....an individualized thing.
ETC.
So, when we are tossing these terms around,
I get confused. However, I can understand
what is being said by statements such as,
"When you have a subjective experience
it may identify the object of your desires, yet,
your object is to be yourself even if certain
desires make you an object of commercial
concerns. So, to believe that you want something
just because you want it would be a rather
subjective claim." All of these uses are in sharp
opposition.
The problem I have is when someone like O'neill,
who wrote the book "Five Bodies" refers to a
Foucault's conception of the modern body as
a "docile subject." If I am correct, this is a distinct
misuse of Foucault? The docile body is an
individualized object, right? It might be constructed
as a subject to disciplinary powers and
commericalism, but.... hmmmm, dinner time for me
too.... Anyway, you get the idea here. I obviously
need to do some more reading!
I sense I have this straight, but I don't KNOW
it well enough to really have it down. It's still all
frothing in my cappucino head. In fact, now that
I've nearly finished this day, I realize that I am
still not yet recuperated from the semster! Perhaps
a beer or two..... (Geez, you'd think I'm an alcoholic
the way I keep mentioning the stuff as of late! ;)
It's just the sea hardened sojourner in me, though.
Plus, I'm a Wisconsinite and it's snowing. What else
am I to do?
Cheers!
Eric Nelson Shook mailto:enshook@xxxxxxxxxxx
Student of Philosophy & Cultural Anthropology
"Alienation hasn't enough sense to deliberate
over circumstances. It has no sense of humor."