>But surely you can imagine an instance in which your
>enjoyment could be removed by a retroactive interpretation...
well ken ole boyo, i'd imagine that those studs of yours wouldn't have used *intentionally* gendered language if it were *really* possible to have such influence over them.
otherwise, ken, we have convos all the time and i actually smack my head against a steel wall about 187 times coz i need to hurt more and sometimes i beg you to shoot me and put me out of my misery. even that physical punishment doesn't evacuate my memory of what a joy our first time was so i keep coming back for more.
butterfly kisses.........
while i can imagine and indeed some psych folks say they know how to recreate those conditions, i still say, NO the thomas theorem doesn't work like you want it to. were you to read hidden injuries of class, you would see that despite being defined as too dim to be good students, the children don't necessarily learn to see themselves as thoroughly nitwitted. which is to say, they have competing understandings of themselves despite what so many around them tell them
>like if you found out how much the performers were paid? My
>point is that we construct our past from the future.
i know honeybunchems. but it's purely theoretical. it doesn't work in practice and it surely isn't the case that we can just impose meaning on the past as if its a blank slate. 'sides this separation b/t past/future is odd. how many pasts/futures do you go thru in a movie? i go thru lots. reinterpreting what i'm thinking right then as we go along by saying to meself: "self, how would these work with students and i have to imagine how they think about these flicks based on my past exp" or "self, what would ken doll think or kirsten baby or my mom or my son or an old boyfriend"
see i guess i can't figure out why you wanna stop time? and, if hab old bud is doing this it's only a thought experiment, not reality and he knows this.
>We suffer the symptom, and then we determine the cause, as
>a justification of the effect. So the explanation / meaning of
>the cause comes after the effect. The "cause" of WWI can
>only be seen *after* its effects (to use an example from high
>school).
now you're not trying to say explanation and meaning are the same thing here are you. once upon a time people said that sneezing meant that you were letting evil spirits escape from your body. that meant you were a good person and god blessed you or should. sumpin like that.
now we say that sneezing is caused by irritants in the nose and there's also something about exposure to strong sunlight early in a.m. but can't think of how that causes us to sneeze. anyhoo, the explanation doesn't fully confer meaning. someone who sneezes is said to be possibly ill, has allergies, was just exposed to irritants as an explanation. what that means could be:
a. oooo sick person. ick stay away. ugh. b. oh poor baby, you need to be pampered coz you have a cold c. no reaction whatsoever. [a blink uninterpreted] d. perfunctory, 'bless you and move on e. this person has allergies and is a weakling child who's mother is too overbearing f. take two and call me in the morning
>DE isn't divorced from the social here.
ken sweetcheeks, you was divorcing it from the social
Bernstein's interest in
>Habermas's reconstructive project is a practical one: as a
>"strong practical consequence for orienting our ethical and
>political activity." Bernstein collapses Habermas's
>reconstructive project into practice (which, in a sense, it
>already was). He replaces with a hope or a belief (a
>pragmatic performative attitude) in universals and "strong"
>reason.
but his 'hope' rests in sociality. that we're social beings. and we have to recognize this even in the midst of the most heated battle/war and this will rescue us from self/destructive impulses. that's the only universal and i cannot see how "you are social and so you are," is destructive b/c it does not mean happy happy joy joy
>Bernstein understand subjectivization to take place in
>community... and the 'fullest subject' (my term) is the
>decentered subject ("what has come to be called the
>decentering of the subject is integral to the pragmatic
>project") (328).
and your objection is.....?
Zizek simply notes that
>the only political ethics that can be said to exist is this: don't
>give up on your desire (without privileging any particular
>model).
ugh.
no such thing as pre-political except in some kooky philosophical world that separates things out this way.
>Can we at least agree that Bernstein thinks a decentered
>subject is qualitatively "more democratic" than an egoist?
not sure why democratic is opposed to egoistic
>Yes! We derive meaing from our fantasies. But our fantasies
>are a synthesis of the Other (the symbolic order). This is
>why the Freudian unconsciousness is so important.
baloney! baloney! baloney! we make meaning as bricoleurs. i read this in lacan even. it's out of bits and pieces, my h'omelette. but this is not diff from a symbolic interactionist perspective.
>Bernstein is enough of a hermeneuticist to think that reason
>itself is the universal (something that we all share in common,
> something which is not dimished by this plurality). This is
>how he holds all of these theorists together - by invoking a
>common interest in reason, whether in the form of irony,
>fallibilism, or arguments.
yah but he doesn't use that as the universal regulative ideal. it's sociality. we are social beings and working together to get something accomplised. that's his categorical imperative i'd say.
smoochey smooch and i wuv you too. kelley