From: Jack Sargeant (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 23 2006 - 14:37:52 PST
Cari
you seem to be luxuriating in not actually thinking about what I am
saying, I am not and never have barked at you, I am saying that you can
not work on generalisms and assumptions regarding universal concepts
because there are no universal concepts. You keep on trying to find
them, and I keep pointing out the constructed nature of these concepts.
This does not mean that communication is not possible, but it does mean
that understanding is not guaranteed, for example when translating from
one language to another, there is often a meaning to a word that can
not be translated, that exceeds the meaning of the equivalent word in
another language. this is because words have meaning based on their
relationship to other words, to cultural understanding of those words
and so on.
> i would recommend joseph campbell reading
> (further zen/Buddhism is relevant here though limitedly)
>
I don't feel the need to read Campbell, and I am not a Buddhist.
> cooking washing food is a universal concept
> all cultures do both - they also eat and shit
doing these things and having a shared concept is not the same. Try
spending time in a desert culture with no toilets and no toilet paper,
then return to the USA with hot running water, you will see that there
are different rituals around shit and personal cleaning, rituals that
are culturally specific. If you don't wash your shitty fingers in
America (or the UK or anywhere with running water) people will be
upset, but North African desert cultures are careful to use one hand
for wiping, one for eating and greeting.
Food has meanings that are specific for cultures, to generalize in the
west we cook fish, in Japan they do not, which is food?
Or (food and translation and communication): one man's fish is another
man's poisson.
> i would go further into a priori
> the first birds ever to be i am sure was completely aware of the
> concept of fucking
> procreation is super important
Have you been watching March of the Penguins?
> (instinct embodies concept)
Uh...migrating whales understand which concept? Following their dinner?
Warm water? Where is the concept?
> you seem to be a head without a body
No, read my books and posts. I am a body without organs.
> there is something called the physical plane
> anthropocentricity runs rampid in acedemia
I don't see anything I have said as anthropocentric, rather I keep
de-centering language, de-centering meaning, and de-centering
certainty, I would certainly de-centre the anthropocentric. I keep
saying I do not believe in universal concepts, by definition this would
include anthropocentricism,
> i am super concerned that you are limited within this 'realm'
> or fixed stagnation
Please re-read my posts, I keep saying that there are no truths and
that I embrace the idea of a Blanchot / Nietzeach wide open sea of
possibility, by definition this would avoid fixed stagnation.
>
>
> i gave specifics
> then you barked that i didn't give repetitive blah blah
No re-read posts, you ramble on about violence, then suddenly this
violence was childbirth, and then it was computer games and so on.... I
merely wanted to understand what you were writing about. You state you
"expanded" meaning, fine, but most people wouldn't really consider a
discussion about violence that implied, say, warfare to be expanded
into birth without actually saying so.
> i don't think i can post ALL of the specifics every time i post
> or need to post specifics to talk about shit
> if that is your rule for posting then why do you urself not align to
> this rule
> you never question me just tell me that i am fucking up
> don't think that's too dialogueie
> bad parent skills and beyond - not very humane/evolved
I am merely trying to explain a standpoint, and that's all I have done,
you continue to try and engage in a debate in which you transform terms
and meanings, suddenly introduce new elements, and when questioned you
insist actually you were talking about something else. I don't expect
anybody to explain all specifics, but a level of continuity helps. I
believe that there have been other postings by you that have been
questioned because of your occasionally obtuse style of writing i.e
"trueth", and because you make vague and unsubstantiated statements.
I questioned you regarding your use of terms, regarding your ideas
about computer games and so on, and your response is a general
defensive affirmation of empirical knowledge with no evidence, a kind
of "I know this because I saw it", which really prohibits calm or
rational discussion, because if you already know it where does that
leave communication?
>
> as you say everything is interpreted right?
Yes.
>
>
> i remember seeing tarentino(sp?) talk about the reservoir dogs scene
> where the ear is cut off
> the officer he had the intelligence to analyse whether it worked for
> him to leave the scene
> as the visual of the ear being cut off or to edit the actual ear cut
> out - they did a focus
> group - it was far more effective to leave out the actual ear
> cutting - it seems that peoples
> imaginations were far more effective as a tool - i think this leaves
> your 'argument' wanting
No, I think that my argument was that there is no general rule, while I
believe you said that playing violent computer games was a stimuli in
training for soldiers. You also talked about watching violence on the
news (citing the 'Vietnam' War as an example). So in fact I was
arguing that violence is a matter of interpretation, at no point did I
say that seeing violence was more effective than imagining, rather you
evoked watching repeatedly (even going as far as to quote the Ludvig
experiment carried out on Alex in Clockwork Orange, I believe). I am
actually acutely aware of sound design and the power of imagination.
> yes it was that too but... there was some denial about the effect on
> the soldiers
> showing on the tube lovely images of bombings didn't advertise such
> a pretty pretty so...
> the filming was unprecedented to the extent of the imagry
Again, you are discussing violence as visual. And yes, I agree the
visual horror of war is disturbing, my point was that other wider
reasons also contributed to the public response to war. Conversely look
at the lack of gore on the news about the war in Iraq, yet despite this
lack of visceral footage there are still many people upset by the war,
suggesting that our response is based on more than seeing something.
>
>
> umn "very constructed nature"?
> what in the fuck doesn't have a "very constructed nature"
> do you mean constructed by MAN - as if
of course its constructed by society / culture, if you mean MAN from a
gender perspective then I'd suggest that gender was also constructed by
society.
> you are simply yet another example of a fascist 'thinker' in the
> academic world
I object to being called a "fascist 'thinker'", although similar terms
are banded around on a regular basis towards everybody from French
postmodernists to Foucault etc. I would argue, that by trying to free
language and thinking from the metaphysical absolutes - the truths as
you call them - is actually an anti-fascist activity. I presume calling
me a fascist is a gut level response because you dislike having to
think. Anyway, I object to it as insulting.
>
> i think this whole idea of ultimate is very patriarchal and
> controlling
> it also lacks a respect of the individual - present
> i am not just talking people
> "an end" is not "the end"
> "by definition" is funny
> knowing is not all - whether by humans or whatever
> there is da-sein
> i think you need to read heidegger
uh...wasn't he called a fascist?
I've read Heidegger.
> besides as there is continual growth it is an impossibility -
> ultimate blah blah
> do men specifically enjoy setting themselves up for failure
Why are you so angry?
> so that they never have to be successful
> is success so scary?
> it sounds so much like a soap opera / superhero story
> becoming - in ur sense - disregards everything real
> ur "ultimate" is my "now"
> (even though 'now' embodies alot of stupidity)
>
> are you reading d + g's 'becoming' right?
If there's a right reading.... but I am not putting that up as a truth
either....
>
> what?
> here is a paradox for you then
> which are you - end - no end?
neither. and both.
SORRY I'VE CUT AND PASTED SO PUT CARI'S COMMENTS IN QUOTES FROM HERE ON
"ok i totally understand where you are/are not coming fr: at the same
time then
I AM IN AWE OF UR EXEMPLARY RIGOR
(sarcasm) "
I don't think I wanted your awe.
"so you use the word belief but mean position
okay that is rigor and specific (sarcasm) "
No, I used a phrase that was the subject to discussion here about
Neoism, about the impossibility of belief. You used the word belief.
re-read your posting.
Dreams that money can by can be purchased on the internet. From the
BFI. In New York City I would imagine Kims video would have it. in
Chicago facets would have it. In San Francisco Ameoba.
"how can you believe in death and justify"
I used ' ' around 'believe' suspending it (or at least showing my
awareness of using the word).
"what the fuck does religion have to do w/ belief in death?"
Our relationship to death is mediated through cultural experiences, for
many people these are religious. I am not religious so don't believe in
an afterlife of any kind, your posting implied you did, hence my
comment on religion.
"how can anyone believe in death? - i don't get it"
I don't know what to say, I am not religious, when I die that's it.
re maths:
"one does not x out the other
i did not say it was an absolute
what i try to get you into is the physical plane
you just don't want to be there
just because some math is not completely pure doesn't make it so that
other math is not
9 is always divisible by 9
but just because other numbers are not it doesn't mean they are not
numbers
your 'logic' leaps so very much it's amazing but i guess that is
common"
I am sorry but you did cite maths as an absolute, you even said
something about believing in science as an evidence for truth. Re-read
your posts.
on Derrida and transcendental signifier:
" no definition in my world
but i don't live in the la la land of a soap opera
where i need pacifiers like concepts of god
if derrida wrote that universal trueth or trueth = god then he was
simply wrong"
It's all to do with a search for absolutes. That which gives meaning.
that's what Derrida means, but he didn't say he believed there was an
absolute, rather he argued the antithesis, that the search for truth
for absolutes and so on was always doomed to fail because of
self-engendered philosophical paradox. I believe there's a Heidiggerian
gesture here (in Derrida) but he would still argue against Heidigger on
metaphysical grounds (i believe he did in OF SPIRIT).
"well i think it is both process and fixed
(as i keep repeating there is a physical plane)
one does not x out the other
both still and moving at the same time (time + space)
also everything is co-creative even destruction
why do you so invest in such limitations
it isn't logical - seems emotional"
Cari - you are contradicting yourself. I am emotional but locked in my
head? If you spent less time trying to be deep or being slightly rude
and actually thought about things you would possibly get further. At no
point have I introduced limits, but you introduced the speed of light
as a certainty.
"you are continually ignoring this main point in every post i make
what is your motive in doing that?"
you haven't really made any points, you've danced between ideas, but as
I said above as soon as I try and discuss them you evoke some kind of
non-discursive distance, refusing to say what you mean by violence, or
just saying that you know somebody so end of story (as you did about
the role of computers in military training).
"i was also thinking of fahrenheit 911"
see what I mean? You've jumped from Clockwork Orange to Faranheit 9/11
how could I know this?
sen the effects of shock that post traumatic stress suggests
" i don't think i did but if so -
so what?
why are you remaining stuck in this?"
I'm not, this is the first post I've done on this for a month, more to
the point, it's because you keep on going on.
" it wasn't the main point if so
it was about positioning the audience - the title of the subject here
ya know"
conversations develop. Moreover, you don't even know what you've
written, as you say above "so what" if you said something, well the so
what is what we are talking about here.
I can't be bothered to engage with your statements about most people
lacking identity and so on, you haven't even considered the
ramification of such statements and are now suddenly discussing mass
psychology, this makes no sense.
END
JACK
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.