On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 SCHULTE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> hmmm--
>
> i have seen glo's comments quite frequently these days. why call her a
> "lurker"? and, does it matter if one "lurks" anyway?
>
> jean
>
in reply to schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, who wrote:
>
>
> GLO> Did anyone stop to ask the french kings and aristocracy about
> "the body count"? Does Foucault? Hm... -Glo
>
hello,
it seems to this lurker that the problem with this kind of
criticism of foucault is that it doesn't recognize the alternatives to
transgression. the "body count" must be addressed whether one
transgresses or not. as things stand right now, the body count is pretty
high. at issue isn't the ethics of transgression, but rather the ethics
of action. transgression is only one possible way of acting on the
categories that constitute the world.
best,
dan
[end selection from schubert]
I think SCHULTE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has perhaps understandably misunderstood
the reference of the "this" in schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx's post. The latter
was referring to itself as the lurker, not to someone else.
There's something else schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said I would like to second:
transgression is only one possible way of acting on the
categories that constitute the world. [schubert]
One of the points being made by F in Preface is the centrality of limits
on the act of transgression! An imposition of limits can be one way to
"act on categories that constitute the world" and perhaps to manufacture
them as well.
A "Preface to Limits" could be written -- maybe it has been written!
Certainly this title crosses my mind when reviewing Weber's arguments in
_The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ concerning the kinds
of sharp constraints the Puritan-capitalist hero had to impose on itself.
Notice that what looks like a limit from one angle looks like a
transgression from another.
ransom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> hmmm--
>
> i have seen glo's comments quite frequently these days. why call her a
> "lurker"? and, does it matter if one "lurks" anyway?
>
> jean
>
in reply to schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, who wrote:
>
>
> GLO> Did anyone stop to ask the french kings and aristocracy about
> "the body count"? Does Foucault? Hm... -Glo
>
hello,
it seems to this lurker that the problem with this kind of
criticism of foucault is that it doesn't recognize the alternatives to
transgression. the "body count" must be addressed whether one
transgresses or not. as things stand right now, the body count is pretty
high. at issue isn't the ethics of transgression, but rather the ethics
of action. transgression is only one possible way of acting on the
categories that constitute the world.
best,
dan
[end selection from schubert]
I think SCHULTE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has perhaps understandably misunderstood
the reference of the "this" in schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx's post. The latter
was referring to itself as the lurker, not to someone else.
There's something else schubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said I would like to second:
transgression is only one possible way of acting on the
categories that constitute the world. [schubert]
One of the points being made by F in Preface is the centrality of limits
on the act of transgression! An imposition of limits can be one way to
"act on categories that constitute the world" and perhaps to manufacture
them as well.
A "Preface to Limits" could be written -- maybe it has been written!
Certainly this title crosses my mind when reviewing Weber's arguments in
_The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ concerning the kinds
of sharp constraints the Puritan-capitalist hero had to impose on itself.
Notice that what looks like a limit from one angle looks like a
transgression from another.
ransom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx