On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:48:24 -0400 kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote:
> this is a functionalist argument.
Well, yes and no. Functionalism has to do with cause and effect. The idea that our "ideas" are in direct relation to our senses and perceptions. My argument is far more dialectical than that (although I would argue that there is an object cause of desire) - since I would argue that the cause can only be reconstructed in retrospect, after the fact, which is to say that the effect "exceeds" the cause through its own re-interpretation of its events. This isn't functionalism, unless you're using a "new" definition of functionalism that assimilates negative dialectics.
> why is childhood invented--if it is. is it really "invented"?
Insert Sarcasm: No, it's natural. Just like rubber zoot suits. Genetics, really. We're all genetically programed to be kids, and somewhere between 16-21 is the Real drinking age - it's all in there, in our genetic make-up, along with not wearing white after labour day. Consciousness counts for nothing. "Let kids be kids!" It's all natural: capitalism, destruction, the social Darwin dudes got it right. Survival of the fittest. There is no desire, only cause. Childhood isn't invented, it's an objective state of affairs. Langauge is a totality, and we've got the hotline to God through our method.
> as if "seeing" what you see is somehow objective or just plain there?
I think you're slipping into an illusionary expectation. I'm not aiming to explicate the view from the object, I'm trying to ruin the fun we derive from such objects. There is always a speculative element when we're talking about the imaginary, but without this we lapse into the most rigid of iron cages. Nearly every theorist I've ever read outlines the importance of the imagination in theory and in practise. Unfortunately, only a few of them actually think about the implications.
> > My frame of reference isn't
> >objectivistic, it's invertentionist.
> THIS IS HILARIOUS. what a piece of slippage. it's beautiful ken. just
beautiful. i think i'm going to drift off into a frenzy of hypervetilation
and have a smoke later after i'm sated.
Encore!, eh?
> my problem is that you, the lacanian, take up the position of telling
eveyone else what they're "really" doing.
Tis a lie. What I'm really doing is telling everyone else what they're really doing. The problem is, everyone already knows exactly what they're doing (which is why this says nothing) - but they're still doing it!
> now, that's not so bad if you insist on an objectivist epistemology. but
you're not. so you're fucked. just as fucked as everyone you're criticizing.
Smells like functionalism, bleh [subtexted]
ken