>Now obviously there is an empirical problem here: what happens when one
accuses
>another of being psychotic and this is not the case. I'm not addressing
that
>here (since this is a practical concern, and my concern here addresses moral
>theory). I'm talking about the institution of cultural logics, cultural
logics
>which portray psychotic moments which are then instituted in both internal
and
>external ways. I have no doubt that you will disagree with most of what is
>written here - but I want to make it clear that I have not assigned blame
here.
>Who is to be held responsible? I don't know, not completely. But
>responsibilty lives in the hands of the guilt laden subject, the subject who
>has translated the moral imperative into ethical decision making. The one
who
>takes responsibility is acting in an ethical manner ("I played a part in all
>of this."), by merit of their guilty conscience, the one who says, "It
isn't my
>fault that I enjoyed doing that!" is operating according to a psychotic
logic.
>Again, I'm not prescribing ethical roles or moral imperatives, I'm not
assuming
>that morality in and of itself it good or bad, I'm simply trying to
elucidate
>the logic of moral phenomenon in psychoanalytic terms.
hmmmm. translation help: i have been charged with the "crime" of accusing some one or some persons of being psychotic. but i didn't do it! it's the theory talking and i'm not talking about people, but cultural logics which manifest themselves at social and individual levels. i did it in order to elucidate the logic of moral phenomenon in psychoanalytic terms. it's for the good of the theory!
it's somehow wrong when habermas does it--breaks up chunks of the 'muck' in order to analyze their logics -- but it's okay to do it *for* psychoanalytic theory! it's not me! i didn't make up these terms! i'm just using them because others did! i bear no responsibility for the cultural baggage these terms carry.
sorry to sound like a bitch but rilly ken i just don't get it!
kelley