After the Fall (was Re: religious crackpots in public life)

[kelley]

At 04:05 PM 7/9/00 -0400, kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:53:21 -0400 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> 
>wrote:
>
> > In other words, the "flaw" of the split & fractured subject 
> as  theorized in
>psychoanalysis = the Original Sin caused by the Fall theorized in 
>Christianity.
>
>Sigh.
>
>We've been through this before, several months ago. There is a qualitative
>difference between original sin brought about by the fall as theologized in
>christianity and the OBJECTIVE processes of human development and the 
>formative
>processes of socialization and individuation.
>
>Self-consciousness cannot be achieved with the aquisition of language (or 
>some
>such symbolic system that is achived through socialization). Despite our
>pre-linguistic tendencies, which facilitate language acquisition, the brain
>isn't hardwired for any *specific* language - otherwise we'd all be speaking
>the same m(other) tongue. Language-use is, essentially, alienating from our
>needful state of being (prior to language). This creates a rupture between
>"being" and "speaking." This rupture can only be "fixed" at the expense of
>subjectivity. In other words - subjectivity is a forced choice: you either 
>"be"
>or you "speak." Hence, there is a gap. Language does not spring naturally (so
>to speak) - it appears only in a social community. Entrance into this 
>community
>*creates* a kind of second nature in human beings. Exactly how does this
>correspond to the fall? (where subjectivity is conceived of as full blown
>and Ideal maturity - *Absolute* freedom of will outside of any and all
>contingency and social context).

noper ken, i think butler's right about this.  it's only in retrospect that 
we create a state of need.  there is no such thing as "being" or "need" 
until after language in which we posit such a thing.

kelley


>ken