From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 22:08:20 GMT
Platt and all,
>
> > Foucault makes no judgement as to what reality is,
> > only to how we have perceived reality.
>
> Obviously he has made a judgment about what reality
> is. Otherwise,
> reality would be exactly as we perceive it to be. In
> other words, in order
> to make a judgment as to "how we have perceived
> reality," Foucault
> must have established some standard as basis for his
> judgment. To
> make a judgment is to select from two or more
> options.
I don't think you appreciate the methodology of
Foucault's works. He focuses on people and their
texts, throughout history, to show the discontinuity
(and thus the relativity) of how we think. I don't
think you can make such a bold claim as 'obviously he
has made a judgement' without being acquainted with
his work. He does no such thing. He accepts that,
e.g., a plant is as it seems visually (and so, in a
sense, we can 'know' reality), but then shows the
discontinuity in how society has integrated plants
into thought and knowledge in the field of naure and
science, and so demonstrates the relativity of
thought.
> > Thus, he has no 'universal good' - or if
> > he does, it is formal, not substantive, applying
> only
> > to the rigours of (historical) analysis, and not
> to
> > any metaphysical assumptions or prescriptions.
>
> Ok, I get it. Formal is subjective, substantive is
> objective. Only
> substantive is real.
> I take it "formal" means "all in your head."
In so much as it means *how* we think, not *what* we
think.
> > Quality is universal in the MoQ, but not in
> reality
> > itself. I understand that conceptual constants
> are
> > necessary for thought, but the transposition into
> the
> > realm of the universal truth is what bothers me.
>
> Again, "not in reality itself" suggests you know
> what "reality itself" is.
To paraphrase myself, 'Quality is not universal in
reality itself, only in how we perceive reality in the
MoQ'. I can perceive reality. But I can also analyse
my own perception. And in this way, I can determine
that 'quality' is located in my perception, and so not
in reality. I never make any claims about reality
other than it being a contact source of stimuli to my
perceptions, such that it can be thought about. This
is a concept basically at the core of postmodernism:
to turn thought back around on itself, and analyse
thought, not reality, to show the faults, the
relativity and the limits of thought.
> > I'm referring to the postmodern trends in
> > deconstructivist Europe (e.g. Foucault, Derrida,
> > Lyotard, Baudrillard, Satre, as well as 'golden
> > oldies' like Nietzsche), as well as the so called
> > 'bourgious liberalism' in the US, exemplified by
> Matt
> > E.E.'s favourite, Rorty. Of course, each of these
> > contributions can't simply be reduced to the idea,
> > 'truth is contingent', but they all build upon an
> > anxiety over 'universals', meta-narratives, and
> the
> > idea that human reason holds the solution to
> > everything.
>
> Well, if thoughts aren't real, what difference does
> it make?
When did I say 'thoughts aren't real'? I've merely
said that thoughts (and other elements of human
consciousness) are illusions. I never said that the
illusions don't exist.
> > There's nothing wrong at all per se with arguing
> with
> > 40 years of thought. It's just that it's better
> to
> > have an awareness of what is happening in
> > contempoarary ideas than not be aware. If you can
> > persuasively argue against it, then good for you!
>
> A lot of people besides me have persuasively argued
> against it including
> Wilber, Scruton, Kimball, Stove and of course,
> Pirsig.
When has Pirsig 'persuasively argued' against Eurpoean
Deconstructivism? Or postmodernism in general, for
that matter?
> Are you saying that slavery is NOT absolutely
> immoral? Are you saying
> "constructions of man" are unreal? What is your
> objection to man's
> constructions? Why do you separate ideas and "human
> reason" from
> reality?
Yes I am arguing that. Constructions of man are real
in the sense that they are constructions, one has to
remember that many of the components of thought rely
upon their claim of absolutivity for their credibility
- it is this that is 'unreal'. Human reason invents
many things that are not real, again perhaps the
example of morals helps. Morals exist in our heads
indeed, but to 'moralise' is often to conceive of
god-given or metaphysical morals that have no material
presence (as they are beyond humanity) and so are
unreal.
Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 22:08:33 GMT