On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:41:49 -0800, Jayme Davis wrote:
>of "bedrock." Perhaps I'm repressed or cowardly for this
>dissatisfaction yet I can't seem to shake it. Perhaps I AM a "biped,
>ungrateful." Nevertheless, I can't help but feel offended. Alright, I
>admit it: technically, I'm a verb rather than a noun and there is no
>foundation. But let me have my bedrock!!! Yes, bedrock is not
>entirely static. It isn't fixed nor permanent. It's moving (albeit so
>slowly relative to everything else it appears to be firm.) It's in
>process. It's becoming. Blah, blah, blah... But let's admit that
>some "things" move more slowly than others. So the best I can come up
>with is an emphasis on the more viscous aspects of subjectivity. Can't
>these extended moments of viscosity serve as pseudo-foundations?
>Aren't they important (especially as they play in the web of power
>relations?) If I can't have bedrock can I at least have a glacier?
Your message get only half through. I like this notion of glacier, or
moving bedrock. But I do not understand your offense, since you
have given up the notion of 'essence or core,' the notion of speed
seems to little for going to war on. Stressing the 'more fluid' aspects
has two components, one is tactical, reacting to posibilities inside
a tradition of philosophy centered on a 'core or essence', if you don't feel
the weight of this tradition, you may still appreciate why otthers did. The second
is ethical, emphasising what relation with
oneself one 'ought' to cultivate, without implying that the self is not affected
by stabilizing forces, on the contrary, the ethical point of view may be said to
be necessary only because stabilization exists. The real question in relation
to viscuosity seems to me viscuosity of what. what do you see as viscuos, a
discourse of the self, a set of perceptions and dispositions to act upon them in
certain ways, a set of practices of affecting oneself?
>Lately, all the emphasis seems to be on the more fluid aspects of self.
> Although these aspects are important and I'm not suggesting that there
>is some sort of underlying inherent core or essence, I'm more intrigued
>with viscosity and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this is
>important. I would greatly appreciate it someone would address this
>issue or would address why this shouldn't be an issue. I'm begging for
>a glacier. Come on... someone... please?
>
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>of "bedrock." Perhaps I'm repressed or cowardly for this
>dissatisfaction yet I can't seem to shake it. Perhaps I AM a "biped,
>ungrateful." Nevertheless, I can't help but feel offended. Alright, I
>admit it: technically, I'm a verb rather than a noun and there is no
>foundation. But let me have my bedrock!!! Yes, bedrock is not
>entirely static. It isn't fixed nor permanent. It's moving (albeit so
>slowly relative to everything else it appears to be firm.) It's in
>process. It's becoming. Blah, blah, blah... But let's admit that
>some "things" move more slowly than others. So the best I can come up
>with is an emphasis on the more viscous aspects of subjectivity. Can't
>these extended moments of viscosity serve as pseudo-foundations?
>Aren't they important (especially as they play in the web of power
>relations?) If I can't have bedrock can I at least have a glacier?
Your message get only half through. I like this notion of glacier, or
moving bedrock. But I do not understand your offense, since you
have given up the notion of 'essence or core,' the notion of speed
seems to little for going to war on. Stressing the 'more fluid' aspects
has two components, one is tactical, reacting to posibilities inside
a tradition of philosophy centered on a 'core or essence', if you don't feel
the weight of this tradition, you may still appreciate why otthers did. The second
is ethical, emphasising what relation with
oneself one 'ought' to cultivate, without implying that the self is not affected
by stabilizing forces, on the contrary, the ethical point of view may be said to
be necessary only because stabilization exists. The real question in relation
to viscuosity seems to me viscuosity of what. what do you see as viscuos, a
discourse of the self, a set of perceptions and dispositions to act upon them in
certain ways, a set of practices of affecting oneself?
>Lately, all the emphasis seems to be on the more fluid aspects of self.
> Although these aspects are important and I'm not suggesting that there
>is some sort of underlying inherent core or essence, I'm more intrigued
>with viscosity and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this is
>important. I would greatly appreciate it someone would address this
>issue or would address why this shouldn't be an issue. I'm begging for
>a glacier. Come on... someone... please?
>
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------