Chad and all,
I wonder if Wynyard H's post doesn't suggest something useful about ZT.
I have it in my mind that there is an interesting piece in the biography
of Canguilhem about the norm, in relation to sticklebacks. (this
thought is on the edge of my mind and won't clarify: you must bear with
me).
I think the point is that the stickleback lives in clean water: if the
water isn't clean, it doesn't just not thrive, it doesn't live, or at
least not there.
This raises the question about norms among humans:we don't have such a
clear indication of the 'norm': the norm is an evershifting mark, only
indicated by the exclusion of some one or ones:
So if we want to raise the norm we exclude more, i.e. we define more
behaviours as being beyond the norm. ( With good scientific evidence)
The romanticism of a idyllic age in the unspecified past makes this an
easier process.
( I knew I would get back to wynyard eventually)
The unacceptable is absolutely intrinsic to the acceptable.
Therefore ZT indicates a shift in norms, which may be easier to
understand by looking at the etiology (is that the word? sounds like ER)
of the desirable norm, rather than at the characteristics or rhetoric of
the excluded.
cheers,
nesta
I wonder if Wynyard H's post doesn't suggest something useful about ZT.
I have it in my mind that there is an interesting piece in the biography
of Canguilhem about the norm, in relation to sticklebacks. (this
thought is on the edge of my mind and won't clarify: you must bear with
me).
I think the point is that the stickleback lives in clean water: if the
water isn't clean, it doesn't just not thrive, it doesn't live, or at
least not there.
This raises the question about norms among humans:we don't have such a
clear indication of the 'norm': the norm is an evershifting mark, only
indicated by the exclusion of some one or ones:
So if we want to raise the norm we exclude more, i.e. we define more
behaviours as being beyond the norm. ( With good scientific evidence)
The romanticism of a idyllic age in the unspecified past makes this an
easier process.
( I knew I would get back to wynyard eventually)
The unacceptable is absolutely intrinsic to the acceptable.
Therefore ZT indicates a shift in norms, which may be easier to
understand by looking at the etiology (is that the word? sounds like ER)
of the desirable norm, rather than at the characteristics or rhetoric of
the excluded.
cheers,
nesta