Touche. I didn't think I WAS advocating a pomo manifesto, though. I was
saying that such would miss the point. I was trying to emphasize the
continuity of the values of pomos with the western tradition because it is
not some metaphysical "gnosis" which has descended upon us from above saving
us from western modernism, but rather the placing the self critical/open to
difference ethic of intellectual and social engagement as the one of central
value to us (and I mean, simply "us.") I think that the examples you gave
of affirmative action and anti-racism in western industrialized economies
are the real life approaches to things from which the principle of
"postmodernism" is drawn a posteriori and now being codified into theories
and contemplating manifestos. All I'm saying is that rather than coming up
with a specific manifesto for all of postmodernism, approach the kinds of
problems you mentioned earlier with thtsat "postmodern" ethic we saw
concretely emerge in American culture in the 60s (for example) to new
circumstances.
When I refer to people's hearts I am referring not to something metaphysical
and fixed but to whatever it is about people that responds to a proposed
ethos, emotionally, aesthetically, cognitively, circumstantially, or
however. Yes it is not a fixed thing, that is part of why postmodernists
can appeal to people, not to human natures but real people, in ways that
have a hope of affecting revaluations within them. There may not be
determinate human nature, and talk of such may be very dangerous and bias,
BUT Foucault or any one else would not be able to make inferences about
power relations in the 18th Century (or any century for that matter) without
assuming Something relatively constant about the natures of "humans" or
their "hearts." We may never speak definitively, but we must speak. If for
our values if not for hope of certainty. Unless you want to reject your
values for the sake of consistency with your relativism, but then you still
must realize you don't have a basis to do that more than empty intellectual
consistency which refuses to be anti-volitional in a, dare I say it,
"unnatural" way.
So, to answer your (most of your questions): No, not a humanist self. Yes
some kind of instinct or discernable tendencies of human behavior or
whatever it is that postmodernists are assuming are functioning when they
read in things like motivations or power-dynamics of people in the past...
however malleable it may be in concrete circumstances.
I do think this is of more immediate priority as opposed to a return to an
Enlightenment utopianism or revolutionary ideology which crushes its
idealism in pursuit of its pragmatics and becomes another Vietnam or
Bolshevik Revolution.
Finally, if the change does not become effective through people's "hearts"
where can it? New laws, new definitions of what it must mean to be human?
It is an attitude that is our only hope for a better political attitude.
Not a new political formation which says you must think with this attitude
or go to jail.
Is that better?
Dan
----Original Message Follows----
From: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: what about us
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:06:04 GMT
>This newly evolved version of the Western liberal
>ethic is more important than any momentary political or intellectual agenda
>because, if effective in taking root in more and more people's hearts, it
>will be the deciding factor of what makes up the heart of political and
>intellectual agendas in the future.
So let me get this straight then. A pomo manifesto is a) more important than
any momentary political or intellectual agenda. Is it? how is it? why is it?
b) it is more important because it might be effective in taking root in
peoples hearts? what is / are peoples hearts? do you mean human nature or
instinct or a humanist conception of self? if so then too bad because they
have been rejected within pomo theory c) if it is effective in taking root
in peoples hearts it will be the deciding factor in political and
intellectual agendas in the future. Really? why is that? who says that will
be the case?
Doesnt western liberal capitalism already promote a respect for difference
e.g affirmative action, anti-rascism etc in western industrialised
economies? whilst at the same time denying those rights to others in the
'third world' e.g the right to life, food, shelter, medicine (need i go on?)
what and how will a postmodern manifesto address this? Where does politcal
economy fit in to a pomo manifesto?
cheers,
Doug.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
saying that such would miss the point. I was trying to emphasize the
continuity of the values of pomos with the western tradition because it is
not some metaphysical "gnosis" which has descended upon us from above saving
us from western modernism, but rather the placing the self critical/open to
difference ethic of intellectual and social engagement as the one of central
value to us (and I mean, simply "us.") I think that the examples you gave
of affirmative action and anti-racism in western industrialized economies
are the real life approaches to things from which the principle of
"postmodernism" is drawn a posteriori and now being codified into theories
and contemplating manifestos. All I'm saying is that rather than coming up
with a specific manifesto for all of postmodernism, approach the kinds of
problems you mentioned earlier with thtsat "postmodern" ethic we saw
concretely emerge in American culture in the 60s (for example) to new
circumstances.
When I refer to people's hearts I am referring not to something metaphysical
and fixed but to whatever it is about people that responds to a proposed
ethos, emotionally, aesthetically, cognitively, circumstantially, or
however. Yes it is not a fixed thing, that is part of why postmodernists
can appeal to people, not to human natures but real people, in ways that
have a hope of affecting revaluations within them. There may not be
determinate human nature, and talk of such may be very dangerous and bias,
BUT Foucault or any one else would not be able to make inferences about
power relations in the 18th Century (or any century for that matter) without
assuming Something relatively constant about the natures of "humans" or
their "hearts." We may never speak definitively, but we must speak. If for
our values if not for hope of certainty. Unless you want to reject your
values for the sake of consistency with your relativism, but then you still
must realize you don't have a basis to do that more than empty intellectual
consistency which refuses to be anti-volitional in a, dare I say it,
"unnatural" way.
So, to answer your (most of your questions): No, not a humanist self. Yes
some kind of instinct or discernable tendencies of human behavior or
whatever it is that postmodernists are assuming are functioning when they
read in things like motivations or power-dynamics of people in the past...
however malleable it may be in concrete circumstances.
I do think this is of more immediate priority as opposed to a return to an
Enlightenment utopianism or revolutionary ideology which crushes its
idealism in pursuit of its pragmatics and becomes another Vietnam or
Bolshevik Revolution.
Finally, if the change does not become effective through people's "hearts"
where can it? New laws, new definitions of what it must mean to be human?
It is an attitude that is our only hope for a better political attitude.
Not a new political formation which says you must think with this attitude
or go to jail.
Is that better?
Dan
----Original Message Follows----
From: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: what about us
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:06:04 GMT
>This newly evolved version of the Western liberal
>ethic is more important than any momentary political or intellectual agenda
>because, if effective in taking root in more and more people's hearts, it
>will be the deciding factor of what makes up the heart of political and
>intellectual agendas in the future.
So let me get this straight then. A pomo manifesto is a) more important than
any momentary political or intellectual agenda. Is it? how is it? why is it?
b) it is more important because it might be effective in taking root in
peoples hearts? what is / are peoples hearts? do you mean human nature or
instinct or a humanist conception of self? if so then too bad because they
have been rejected within pomo theory c) if it is effective in taking root
in peoples hearts it will be the deciding factor in political and
intellectual agendas in the future. Really? why is that? who says that will
be the case?
Doesnt western liberal capitalism already promote a respect for difference
e.g affirmative action, anti-rascism etc in western industrialised
economies? whilst at the same time denying those rights to others in the
'third world' e.g the right to life, food, shelter, medicine (need i go on?)
what and how will a postmodern manifesto address this? Where does politcal
economy fit in to a pomo manifesto?
cheers,
Doug.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.