> >The vegetarianism here is a self-imposed limit
> >whose crossability seems to me to be inherent in the very fact of its being
> >conciously self-imposed.
>
> Totally misses the point and posits a level of 'freedom of subjectivity'
> that is simply untenable. Many of my friends are vegetarians, as I interact
> with them their beliefs and practices enable and constrain mine as do mine
> theirs. The social is always in the individual as a product-in-process and
> decisions are never purely the result of self-imposition or otherwise.
Colin, I don't have the slightest idea how this comment relates to my
sentence in its context. How am I positing any level of "freedom of
subjectivity"? I agree (trivially) that "self-imposed" acts are steeped
in the social, but don't see what point this makes in the specific context
of the transgression discussion.
> Equally, is 'rock bitch's' performance a performance or is it for real? If
> it is for real then it may constitute your notion of a transgression. But if
> it is a cynical marketing ploy then does the same apply. But how would you
> know if the orgasms are real or not?
I wouldn't. So what? To the extent that transgression is a symbolic act,
it is to a great extent in the mind of the beholder, no?
> So, if God is dead is transgression possible?
Well, the kind discussed in _Preface_ seems to _only_ arise with the
death of God. It is "profanation in a world which no longer recognizes
any positive meaning in the sacred".
-m
> >whose crossability seems to me to be inherent in the very fact of its being
> >conciously self-imposed.
>
> Totally misses the point and posits a level of 'freedom of subjectivity'
> that is simply untenable. Many of my friends are vegetarians, as I interact
> with them their beliefs and practices enable and constrain mine as do mine
> theirs. The social is always in the individual as a product-in-process and
> decisions are never purely the result of self-imposition or otherwise.
Colin, I don't have the slightest idea how this comment relates to my
sentence in its context. How am I positing any level of "freedom of
subjectivity"? I agree (trivially) that "self-imposed" acts are steeped
in the social, but don't see what point this makes in the specific context
of the transgression discussion.
> Equally, is 'rock bitch's' performance a performance or is it for real? If
> it is for real then it may constitute your notion of a transgression. But if
> it is a cynical marketing ploy then does the same apply. But how would you
> know if the orgasms are real or not?
I wouldn't. So what? To the extent that transgression is a symbolic act,
it is to a great extent in the mind of the beholder, no?
> So, if God is dead is transgression possible?
Well, the kind discussed in _Preface_ seems to _only_ arise with the
death of God. It is "profanation in a world which no longer recognizes
any positive meaning in the sacred".
-m