Dear Firestorm, You write,
" i offer a concrete to ur analysis, in the hope of increasing the common ground. years ago david frost in a tv showw "that was the weeks that was" had a bit where a klansman and an afrocentric radical debated. the klansman stated: "the negro is 2 million years behind in evolution." the afrocentric retorted " the black man is the original man" i offer that this is a prime example of subverting of meaning by juxtaposition. others might see it as iconoclastic. others as simple friday night humour. with in this iconoclasm/deconstruction dialectic, where do u put it?" Logically, they are not necessarily contradicting each other: the Black man is saying that humanity originated with African Blacks and the Klansman is saying that the Blacks have been overtaken by the Whites. Thus, I'm not sure this is an example of subversion by juxtaposition. To be truly deconstructionist, the Black must show how the Klansman's statement itself contains inner dissonances and subversions that undermine what the statement purports to be saying. One could, for example say that the number "2 million years" is self-subverting because although it purports to be accurate on the surface, is actually such a broad number that it is not a real number at all - and thus undermines the statement itself. Also, it is an example of what Lyotard (another postmodernist) called "terrorism", i.e. the assertion of privileged position - so it is not really a statement of 'fact' at all but rather an attempt to intimidate, i.e. a completely different use of language than at first appears. You write, ":""what is known is known in the manner of the knower."" ok. my recall of the Most Great Unity is that the manners of knowing, quaakitiatively and quantifiably must not of themselves become causes of differentiation, and would thus hold equal "value to the "holder". I would be careful about language here. In the Writings, the kind of "differentiation" you refer to doesn't (IMO) refer to differences per se but to clashes and conflicts which we are to avoid. Those who hold an opinion may well think it is true - but that doesn't mean it actually is. Unqualified relativism, of course, must hold all opinions as equally valid, but the Writings clearly do not agree with this. Best wishes, Ian Kluge -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of firestorm Sent: November 7, 2007 2:41 PM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: RE: Deconstructionism ian, yup. :"Rorty holed up in the position that "consensus" was the only way to avoid deconstructionism's extraordinary difficulties on this issue. This "consensus" could be the consensus of experts, as well as (and he says this) nice progressive liberals like himself whose greatest horror is causing pain to anyone." and? let us look at the bull approaching and see the horn of deus populi as one horn, and Absolute Authority on the other. how do we dance? to get "real" here, :"Its point is that all communication is inherently problematic and ultimately, impossible since every statement is subject to endless self-subversion." is exacctly true. and was added to the lit imnho most clearly, if not originally, by de sade. it forms a core message from which manifests the literary output of de sade. which is, in my verrry firm and actualised opinion, is the reason the UHJ would think the issue of deconstructionism noteworthy. de sade opines that the >>>only<< time there is certitude in communication, and thence intimacy, and thence belonging, is when one is interpreting the moment of infliction of pain and the resulting scream of the recipient. society is doing this to itself. erica troussant offers in some talks the idea that "since we all belong to God, we all want to belong." and in my head i now see a qed. i now add the concretely useful philosopher fred rogers, in his stunningly effective psa for gulf storm i..."children will ask "who will take care of me? "they are not selfish for doing so...it is the only question they can have." this isn't about us. and as u note so well, not about japanese restaurants. :"deconstruction as a method of analysing discourse/action can make anything - anti-semitism - into anything else - philojudaism - i.e. turn Mother Teresa into Dr. Mengele and vice versa." as can any kind of sophistry. the Master notes in re something or other aristotle offering a ptolemaic "proof" for astronomy, and later a copernican "proof" which was not widely circulated. at this existential moment i am waiting a phone call about whether my skill set will be utilised by people who studying whether social engineering can be achieved thru facebook aps. this is accomplished by deconstructing their responses to choice until the "buttons" are found, at which point the buttons can be painted with the coulour of the moment into a new construct. one might erview the work of the concrete philosopher phillip zimbardo for examples. or ruhi 3 or 5. and thus back to the virtue of necessity and the meaning of treasure. Baha'u'llah seems to have nice things to Say about socrates in the Lawh-i-Hikmat. from a wiki-ish watering down of the phaedrus, :"After Theuth remarks on his discovery of writing as a remedy for the memory, Thamus responds that its true effects are likely to be the opposite; it is a remedy for reminding, not remembering, he says, with the appearance but not the reality of wisdom. Future generations will hear much without being properly taught, and will appear wise but not be so, making them difficult to get along with." does derrida point us back to this? for many, yes. the issue is then possibly, to cite otis redding, "where'm i gonna go from here?" i would offer that this central issue "difficult to get along with" is an apt description of the world described in aDj. i would offer that derrida, as an example of one too busy pointing out he has the chariot reins in his hand to direct the flight is a poster boy for the phenomenon he descries and decrys. i would however also offer that the relevant issue is the deconstruction of "approaches" to Text and implementation, and creating direct experience, to the extent possible of the >behaviour< the Text describes as the useful conduct of the charioteer. i find that in your answer to sen we have a great deal of common ground, towards finding the bull's back. :"notice the self-contradiction if we read "relative" in a simplistic way: how can there be a "fundamental verity" i.e. a changeless foundational truth, if this itself is subject to change and is only relatively true?" easy. fundamental verity : life. algae and eagle, equal participants in a fundamental verity. almost entirely disparate in their responses to it. i offer a concrete to ur analysis, in the hope of increasing the common ground. years ago david frost in a tv showw "that was the weeks that was" had a bit where a klansman and an afrocentric radical debated. the klansman stated: "the negro is 2 million years behind in evolution." the afrocentric retorted " the black man is the original man" i offer that this is a prime example of subverting of meaning by juxtaposition. others might see it as iconoclastic. others as simple friday night humour. with in this iconoclasm/deconstruction dialectic, where do u put it? :"Deconstructionism could never accede to this statement given its intrinsic assumption of a privileged viewpoint." can deconstruction say "God changed his mind" in between sips of coffee? :""what is known is known in the manner of the knower."" ok. my recall of the Most Great Unity is that the manners of knowing, quaakitiatively and quantifiably must not of themselves become causes of differentiation, and would thus hold equal "value to the "holder". The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
