Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
>
> 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.
yes, i see the problem: communication entails sending and receiving a
message. yet how is it, essentially, any different to send a message
with on receiver to receive it or no expectation that the message will
be received. while no one may be present for communication to actually
occur, i still engage in exactly what my hale of the process. for
example, people talk to themselves and people communicate even though
they don't expect to be heard, i.e. understood or headed. when i speak
or type a message like this one, i am hoping that it will be received.
i do not know that it will. when it is answered, communication takes
place. but whether or not you respond does not change the nature of
what i am doing. also, during the course of my day i think about what i
am going to say to someone later in the day. i do not have to try to do
this, it just happens, it is natural. another point: children
naturally learn to communicate.
> 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'.
when i said normal, i was not speaking in social, cultural, or personal
terms. i am saying that it is normal to expect that in an overwhelming
number of human actions people do not kill one another. this
observation is not a matter of a subjective perspective. in contrast,
your stand seems to be one of a subjective perspective: that most
people share a point of view, as if we all are tabula rasas and
inculcated not to kill; as if another "point of view" is socially
possible. you must find it strange that societies the world over share
this same perspective, namely that killing is something special, not
mundane or "normal." even when socially sanctioned, killing is a
powerful event and not a normal one. in contrast, people kill other
animals as a normal event, say to eat.
> 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.
thanks for the foucault reference. where does it come from. a soldier
is communicating patriotism, whether real or professed, or by doing the
job and the state communicates its own larger message via war.
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?
is it human nature to be normal, you ask. what do you mean by normal?
if you mean what foucault called normalization in Discipline and Punish,
a cultural norm, then no not necessarily. specific norms are not
natural. acquiescing to some form of norm is natural. but these are
sociocultural norms, which i was not talking about. i am simply saying
that on a universal level there are things, call them normal if you
want, that happen. and cooperation, not killing, prevails on a daily
basis. so to say that human nature, if there is one, is not to kill one
another. this is ALL that i am saying.
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
i believe that foucault would have said that killing is not in one's
best interest. so to avoid or prohibit killing is better in any
situation. humans do do things that do not conform to some concept of a
restrictive human nature. but these are exceptions, not what i am
calling normal. to say that killing is normal is to say that killing is
not an exception to normal social behavior.
mitch
>
>
> 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.
yes, i see the problem: communication entails sending and receiving a
message. yet how is it, essentially, any different to send a message
with on receiver to receive it or no expectation that the message will
be received. while no one may be present for communication to actually
occur, i still engage in exactly what my hale of the process. for
example, people talk to themselves and people communicate even though
they don't expect to be heard, i.e. understood or headed. when i speak
or type a message like this one, i am hoping that it will be received.
i do not know that it will. when it is answered, communication takes
place. but whether or not you respond does not change the nature of
what i am doing. also, during the course of my day i think about what i
am going to say to someone later in the day. i do not have to try to do
this, it just happens, it is natural. another point: children
naturally learn to communicate.
> 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'.
when i said normal, i was not speaking in social, cultural, or personal
terms. i am saying that it is normal to expect that in an overwhelming
number of human actions people do not kill one another. this
observation is not a matter of a subjective perspective. in contrast,
your stand seems to be one of a subjective perspective: that most
people share a point of view, as if we all are tabula rasas and
inculcated not to kill; as if another "point of view" is socially
possible. you must find it strange that societies the world over share
this same perspective, namely that killing is something special, not
mundane or "normal." even when socially sanctioned, killing is a
powerful event and not a normal one. in contrast, people kill other
animals as a normal event, say to eat.
> 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.
thanks for the foucault reference. where does it come from. a soldier
is communicating patriotism, whether real or professed, or by doing the
job and the state communicates its own larger message via war.
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?
is it human nature to be normal, you ask. what do you mean by normal?
if you mean what foucault called normalization in Discipline and Punish,
a cultural norm, then no not necessarily. specific norms are not
natural. acquiescing to some form of norm is natural. but these are
sociocultural norms, which i was not talking about. i am simply saying
that on a universal level there are things, call them normal if you
want, that happen. and cooperation, not killing, prevails on a daily
basis. so to say that human nature, if there is one, is not to kill one
another. this is ALL that i am saying.
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
i believe that foucault would have said that killing is not in one's
best interest. so to avoid or prohibit killing is better in any
situation. humans do do things that do not conform to some concept of a
restrictive human nature. but these are exceptions, not what i am
calling normal. to say that killing is normal is to say that killing is
not an exception to normal social behavior.
mitch