Op 12-apr-97 schreef mitchell wilson:
>secondly, even though you think differently, it is our nature to
>communicate.
so you suppose there exists something which could be called 'our nature', or
'human nature'
and while we do not communicate all the time, like your
>example that we breathe all the time, this does not mean that it is not
>our nature to communicate. we do not have sex all the time, yet having
>sex is certainly our nature. and using your logic--that if something is
>our nature we do it all the time, like breathing, then killing one
>another is certainly not our nature, as we do not do it al the time.
>and besides, communication involves more than just talking. body
>language: gestures, eye contact, and spatial relations(distance from
>one another and orientation to one another) are also forms of
>communication. and being silent, lying, and throwing a bomb are also
>communicating. have you ever received the "silent treatment?" and
>lying is communicating what you want to communicate. were there no need
>to communicate, there would be no need to lie. also, throwing a bomb is
>sending a message, i.e. communicating.
which brings me to the following points:
1) the problem of the lack of meaning in the way you use the word
'communication' still remains
2) moreover: it takes two to tango. communication is only possible if someone
produces signs with the purpose to make something clear to someone else. i
think this is not always the case and so i disagree, not only with you, but
also with habermass c.s. however i've among others umberto eco on my side.
breath is a sign of life, but by breathing i'm not communicating that i'm
alive (unless i use it as a demonstration). breath is a signal, like clouds
are a signal for rain, but only for those of can put the link between clouds
and rain. so for me communication is (i) a consciouss willful act (ii) in a
communicative situation (iii) for which the sender can be held responsable and
(iv) which can be understood by a receiver.
3) i think your focus on normality suffers from pespectivism. to abstain from
killing human beings is normal indeed, but from our point of view, which is
fortunately a point of view many people share, but not the only one possible,
nor necessarily the right one. and the question remains if what's normal from
a certain perspective can tell us something about a universal nature of human
beings and if it even can be used as an argument for the presumption that
there exists a substance which can be called 'human nature'.
4) foucault didn't say that killing people should be considered as normal,
still he was curious why pierre riviere (cf 'moi, pierre riviere, ayant...' -
gallimard, paris 1973) killed his family. this wasn't normal, the defense
pierre wrote wasn't normal either. still foucault found it very interesting,
because it shows how much power of a discourse can have. pierre may have
communicated by his killing, because he wanted to punish his father, but a
soldier in war doesn't communicate, he does his job.
5) what do you mean by 'human nature'? if you're thinking of an aristotelian
nature, then you're right: we should look at what people normally do, we
should understand the energeia, the dynamic presence of the exemplary members
of the human race and abstract the hidden nature from it, so that we can use
logic and tell the truth.
6) but then again is it human nature to be normal? the discussion about
transgression shows among others that it's easier to understand and feel what
and how we are if we look at what's abnormal (this is even the strategy of
science). is it not so that we affirm our existence most at moments when we're
not normal? is abnormality not the peak, the very core, of what we are? some
take foucault as their hero, others nietzsche, others again jezus or gandhi.
were they normal?
7) the concept of transgression doesn't imply that any abnormality is always
better then normality there is no such thing or event that's always better for
anyone in any situation. it means that you confirm the limits by illegally
crossing them, which is accordign to foucault and bataille a very human
affair.
nevertheless: it's always nice to talk to a normal person
erikh
>secondly, even though you think differently, it is our nature to
>communicate.
so you suppose there exists something which could be called 'our nature', or
'human nature'
and while we do not communicate all the time, like your
>example that we breathe all the time, this does not mean that it is not
>our nature to communicate. we do not have sex all the time, yet having
>sex is certainly our nature. and using your logic--that if something is
>our nature we do it all the time, like breathing, then killing one
>another is certainly not our nature, as we do not do it al the time.
>and besides, communication involves more than just talking. body
>language: gestures, eye contact, and spatial relations(distance from
>one another and orientation to one another) are also forms of
>communication. and being silent, lying, and throwing a bomb are also
>communicating. have you ever received the "silent treatment?" and
>lying is communicating what you want to communicate. were there no need
>to communicate, there would be no need to lie. also, throwing a bomb is
>sending a message, i.e. communicating.
which brings me to the following points:
1) the problem of the lack of meaning in the way you use the word
'communication' still remains
2) moreover: it takes two to tango. communication is only possible if someone
produces signs with the purpose to make something clear to someone else. i
think this is not always the case and so i disagree, not only with you, but
also with habermass c.s. however i've among others umberto eco on my side.
breath is a sign of life, but by breathing i'm not communicating that i'm
alive (unless i use it as a demonstration). breath is a signal, like clouds
are a signal for rain, but only for those of can put the link between clouds
and rain. so for me communication is (i) a consciouss willful act (ii) in a
communicative situation (iii) for which the sender can be held responsable and
(iv) which can be understood by a receiver.
3) i think your focus on normality suffers from pespectivism. to abstain from
killing human beings is normal indeed, but from our point of view, which is
fortunately a point of view many people share, but not the only one possible,
nor necessarily the right one. and the question remains if what's normal from
a certain perspective can tell us something about a universal nature of human
beings and if it even can be used as an argument for the presumption that
there exists a substance which can be called 'human nature'.
4) foucault didn't say that killing people should be considered as normal,
still he was curious why pierre riviere (cf 'moi, pierre riviere, ayant...' -
gallimard, paris 1973) killed his family. this wasn't normal, the defense
pierre wrote wasn't normal either. still foucault found it very interesting,
because it shows how much power of a discourse can have. pierre may have
communicated by his killing, because he wanted to punish his father, but a
soldier in war doesn't communicate, he does his job.
5) what do you mean by 'human nature'? if you're thinking of an aristotelian
nature, then you're right: we should look at what people normally do, we
should understand the energeia, the dynamic presence of the exemplary members
of the human race and abstract the hidden nature from it, so that we can use
logic and tell the truth.
6) but then again is it human nature to be normal? the discussion about
transgression shows among others that it's easier to understand and feel what
and how we are if we look at what's abnormal (this is even the strategy of
science). is it not so that we affirm our existence most at moments when we're
not normal? is abnormality not the peak, the very core, of what we are? some
take foucault as their hero, others nietzsche, others again jezus or gandhi.
were they normal?
7) the concept of transgression doesn't imply that any abnormality is always
better then normality there is no such thing or event that's always better for
anyone in any situation. it means that you confirm the limits by illegally
crossing them, which is accordign to foucault and bataille a very human
affair.
nevertheless: it's always nice to talk to a normal person
erikh