on 1/28/01 7:56 PM, Bryan C at kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> (coming off of Asher's last mail)
>
> The problem is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are two
> implications:
>
I did not embrace determinism.
> 1. Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are not
> constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can never be
> an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as a
> work of art, I can't change anything.
>
You misstate what I said. I did not say that you are not constructing
yourself, but that your construction of yourself is constructing the
construction. It is a cycle with no beginning/end, but there is agency
within it that shapes the cycle.
The point is that it is not free-play - actions are constrained by norms and
such.
> 2. Foucault's, your, my, and every other person's ideas are worthless.
> Power is simply creating Foucault and his ideas. Their are necessarily
> untrue (in the modernist logical sense, not the postmodern sense of
> knowlage/power). It is the ultimate in nihilist self destruction. Every-
> thing I do or don't do is a contradiction. Why should I still breath?
> Why shouldn't I?
>
Well if things are determined, you can't ask those questions to begin with.
It's not a matter of contradiction, but a matter of construction within the
constraints.
Foucault (as an agent) may be constructed by relations of power, but in the
same way Foucault constructs those relations of power in their exercise.
That means that the exercise of power influences how power constructs
actions.
> Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or not this is
> my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian autonomy. I
> think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack the
> strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. People's tend
> to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the will to
> commit true intellectual rebellion.
You might want to avoid using "men" as a universal.
The last paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion we've been having -
whether there is the potential for agency. In a way I think your point is
Foucault's. Norms create a certain type of functioning within society. In
the same way it is possible to disrupt norms, to find a space within power
where power can be used t reform/reshape those norms and create the self (a
target of those intersections of power) as a work of art.
It's not a matter of intellectual rebellion - the point is that resistance
is everywhere always ever present.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> (coming off of Asher's last mail)
>
> The problem is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are two
> implications:
>
I did not embrace determinism.
> 1. Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are not
> constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can never be
> an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as a
> work of art, I can't change anything.
>
You misstate what I said. I did not say that you are not constructing
yourself, but that your construction of yourself is constructing the
construction. It is a cycle with no beginning/end, but there is agency
within it that shapes the cycle.
The point is that it is not free-play - actions are constrained by norms and
such.
> 2. Foucault's, your, my, and every other person's ideas are worthless.
> Power is simply creating Foucault and his ideas. Their are necessarily
> untrue (in the modernist logical sense, not the postmodern sense of
> knowlage/power). It is the ultimate in nihilist self destruction. Every-
> thing I do or don't do is a contradiction. Why should I still breath?
> Why shouldn't I?
>
Well if things are determined, you can't ask those questions to begin with.
It's not a matter of contradiction, but a matter of construction within the
constraints.
Foucault (as an agent) may be constructed by relations of power, but in the
same way Foucault constructs those relations of power in their exercise.
That means that the exercise of power influences how power constructs
actions.
> Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or not this is
> my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian autonomy. I
> think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack the
> strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. People's tend
> to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the will to
> commit true intellectual rebellion.
You might want to avoid using "men" as a universal.
The last paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion we've been having -
whether there is the potential for agency. In a way I think your point is
Foucault's. Norms create a certain type of functioning within society. In
the same way it is possible to disrupt norms, to find a space within power
where power can be used t reform/reshape those norms and create the self (a
target of those intersections of power) as a work of art.
It's not a matter of intellectual rebellion - the point is that resistance
is everywhere always ever present.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004