Timothy Mason wrote:
>
> <have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and REALLY wanted to smash in
> someone's skull?
>
> Perplexing chappie, this - type who never drinks. Damned garage mechanic
> almost backed over the dog this morning - killed him at least five times on
> the way home - strangulation - eyes popping out - axe murder - blood
> everywhere (very satisfying) - tickled to death with goose feathers - always
> return to the heavy blunt instrument in the end - putting in the years at
> Upton Park. Spare you further details. Moral of the story? Absolutely none -
> habitus and large policemen. Just didn't have the time.
>
> I'll have a Freud this time, with a twist of Lacan. And look sharp about it
> , or I might twist your bloody head off.
>
> Timothy Mason (Psychopath)
> mason@xxxxxx
yuor message is cryptic(but i'm sure that you know this.) my point is
that if killing one another were our nature, then each of us would want
to kill on a regular basis. now, are you saying that killing and not
killing are dispositions of habitus? that to do or not do "one or the
other" is an inculcated behavior? it seems obvious that you are, but i
don't want to assume.
when a person, you in this case, responds with ridicule, then a natural
reaction is to infer a fundamental disareement. yet your use of habitus
denies the "killing nature" of humans, and this is exactly my
conclusion. habitus explains why humans act in ways that are not in
their nature, like killing other humans. but then, development of a
habitus is probably in our nature, which then produces regular action,
which could be to kill in certain situations. does this create an
infinite regress?
>
> <have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and REALLY wanted to smash in
> someone's skull?
>
> Perplexing chappie, this - type who never drinks. Damned garage mechanic
> almost backed over the dog this morning - killed him at least five times on
> the way home - strangulation - eyes popping out - axe murder - blood
> everywhere (very satisfying) - tickled to death with goose feathers - always
> return to the heavy blunt instrument in the end - putting in the years at
> Upton Park. Spare you further details. Moral of the story? Absolutely none -
> habitus and large policemen. Just didn't have the time.
>
> I'll have a Freud this time, with a twist of Lacan. And look sharp about it
> , or I might twist your bloody head off.
>
> Timothy Mason (Psychopath)
> mason@xxxxxx
yuor message is cryptic(but i'm sure that you know this.) my point is
that if killing one another were our nature, then each of us would want
to kill on a regular basis. now, are you saying that killing and not
killing are dispositions of habitus? that to do or not do "one or the
other" is an inculcated behavior? it seems obvious that you are, but i
don't want to assume.
when a person, you in this case, responds with ridicule, then a natural
reaction is to infer a fundamental disareement. yet your use of habitus
denies the "killing nature" of humans, and this is exactly my
conclusion. habitus explains why humans act in ways that are not in
their nature, like killing other humans. but then, development of a
habitus is probably in our nature, which then produces regular action,
which could be to kill in certain situations. does this create an
infinite regress?