From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 23 2006 - 11:00:30 PST
> On 12/29/05, Jack Sargeant <email suppressed > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > i think it is a leap to say you cannot have a universal concept of
> > > > something
> > >
> > > You can have what you want, but working on unsubstantiated generalisms
> > > doesn't aid communication.
> > as if your 'purity' is exemplary
> > the argument is that what i was talking was universal concept
> > you never address the fact that you could ask me questions
> > you just bark at me
> > please elaborate how you are so communicative within this stance?
> > 'universal trueth is very different than 'unsubstantiated
> > generalisms'
> > do you want me to attack ur 'rigor'?
> > i would recommend joseph campbell reading
> > (further zen/Buddhism is relevant here though limitedly)
> > there are cross cultural universal concepts
> > hey ever seen a smile in say tahiti?
> > cooking washing food is a universal concept
> > all cultures do both - they also eat and shit
> > i would go further into a priori
> > the first birds ever to be i am sure was completely aware of the
> > concept of fucking
> > procreation is super important
> > (instinct embodies concept)
> > you seem to be a head without a body
> > there is something called the physical plane
> > anthropocentricity runs rampid in acedemia
> > i am super concerned that you are limited within this 'realm'
> > or fixed stagnation tunnelly ignoring the periphery
> > the world is an entity WITHIN a universe
> I don't think you need to define every word you use, but when you are
> > > looking at violence in a cause / effect relationship I think specifics
> > >
> > > do matter.
> > i gave specifics
> > then you barked that i didn't give repetitive blah blah
> > you just are never happy - no matter what i do
> > you are wasting time on this 'rigor'
> > whereby more substantial information could be communicated
> > it's just banter/boring
> > > should i put a definition of words after i write the word down?
> > > > i think you are just creating a context for an argument
> > >
> > > No, I merely sited the example of where you switched meaning from
> > > 'violence' to 'childbirth'. I am not creating a context for argument,
> > > but observing the constructed nature of all of your examples which are
> > >
> > > all dependent on wider cultural and social understandings of
> > > 'violence'.
> > i didn't 'switch' meaning
> > i expanded
> > which is what you were barking about
> > (give them what they want and... i think it's called being a crazy
> > maker)
> > i am not sure they are all based on 'wider' or 'dependent'
> > you are not 'observing' you are criticizing in the name of 'rigor'
> > which you lack
> > it's a waste of my time to argue w/ you
> > because it is so pointless - when you urself do not engage rigor
> > rigor in listening especially - it takes work to listen
> > maybe you should take more time w/ the posts b4 posting back
> > > Food is an interesting example, I am a vegetarian, I have dear friends
> > >
> > > who eat lots of meat, so on one level we have no shared concept of
> > > what
> > > food is, so the specific recipes do matter. What about the
> > > relationship
> > > to food and eating, food and ritual, the social function of food?
> > > There
> > > are parts of the world where a cow is food, but other parts see it as
> > > a
> > > holy beast.
> > "on one level"
> > in one way - in another way you do
> > i would say quite a few other ways
> > you eat sustain life poop it out - these are just a few
> > this is also true of lotsa animals
> > i would also say it is well beyond the concept stage into the real
> > primordial
> > i don't think i can post ALL of the specifics every time i post
> > or need to post specifics to talk about shit
> > if that is your rule for posting then why do you urself not align to
> > this rule
> > you never question me just tell me that i am fucking up
> > don't think that's too dialogueie
> > bad parent skills and beyond - not very humane/evolved
> ...cinematic violence demands similar rigor. Without rigor intellect
> > > starves.
> > with massive rule making that only implies to others and not oneself
> > one starves - yes going with your cartoony metaphor
> > also without being open - asking questions - just criticizing others
> > one can be very limited
> > think on a recipe discussion list if someone needed more info they
> > would ask a question
> > not start barking endlessly about lack of info and write things like
> > "oh you can't have just written flour - there is no universal concept
> > of flour"
> > further it seems very co-dependent to have such expectation of the
> > other
> > and not fulfilling it in oneself
> > > what do you think the overall effect of people seeing more thru film
> > > > is?
> > >
> > > Education, inspiration, interest, but not experience. Hence seeing a
> > > violent death (as in say a gun fight) in a film isn't the same as
> > > phenomenological experience.
> > as you say everything is interpreted right?
> > how do you know whether someone is experiencing it in a less
> > phenomenological
> > manner or not - as i stated people passed out at the film
> > saying they are not the same is well - unclear
> > do you mean signifier stuff?
> > representation
> > i just don't know if i agree that they cannot be comparable in effect
> > (particularly if one would never have access otherwise)
> > plus the echo of the eye in camera points to experiencial
> > i don't think you posit an argument here at all
> i remember seeing tarentino(sp?) talk about the reservoir dogs scene
> > where the ear is cut off
> > the officer he had the intelligence to analyse whether it worked for
> > him to leave the scene
> > as the visual of the ear being cut off or to edit the actual ear cut
> > out - they did a focus
> > group - it was far more effective to leave out the actual ear cutting
> > - it seems that peoples
> > imaginations were far more effective as a tool - i think this leaves
> > your 'argument' wanting
> > > > it was in peoples livingrooms - the images
> > >
> > > Is that true? I would suggest it was in part, but was this also media
> > > spin? Perhaps people were outraged by the way the war touched them,
> > > sons being drafted and so on.
> > yes it was that too but... there was some denial about the effect on
> > the soldiers
> > showing on the tube lovely images of bombings didn't advertise such a
> > pretty pretty so...
> > the filming was unprecedented to the extent of the imagry
> > there were alot of conflicts re: the cultural identity of the soldier
> > because of the
> > internal conflict of the war itself
> > the 'hero' and 'saving us' aspect of the identity of the soldier was
> > lost
> > they were treated poorly upon return
> > neglected
> > a sad malaise
> > > The very constructed nature of violence and our understanding of it is
> > >
> > > clear in your use of the term Vietnam War, I presume you mean the
> > > ...
> > >
> > umn "very constructed nature"?
> > what in the fuck doesn't have a "very constructed nature"
> > do you mean constructed by MAN - as if
> > i knew who i was addressing
> > - whatever -
> > ask a question instead of complaining like a baby
> > it is a super different way dude
> > > becoming and being and i don't see the diametric of one inside the
> > > > other
> > >
> > > Well they come from totally different philosophical standpoints, as I
> > > was stating / trying to state. The search for ultimate meaning is a
> > > search for an ultimate knowledge, effectively an end, when the
> > > ultimate
> > > is known there is by definition nothing else. That does not interest
> > > me...hence becoming.
> > like evolution cannot unite what you call completely different
> > like i cannot adhere to differences within myself
> > heard the word 'paradox' ever?
> > you are simply yet another example of a fascist 'thinker' in the
> > academic world
> > i think this whole idea of ultimate is very patriarchal and
> > controlling
> > it also lacks a respect of the individual - present
> > i am not just talking people
> > "an end" is not "the end"
> > "by definition" is funny
> > knowing is not all - whether by humans or whatever
> > there is da-sein
> > i think you need to read heidegger
> > you seem to be way too drenched in anthropocentric thought processies
> > to be able to see
> > besides as there is continual growth it is an impossibility - ultimate
> > blah blah
> > do men specifically enjoy setting themselves up for failure
> > so that they never have to be successful
> > is success so scary?
> > it sounds so much like a soap opera / superhero story
> > becoming - in ur sense - disregards everything real
> > ur "ultimate" is my "now"
> > (even though 'now' embodies alot of stupidity)
> > are you reading d + g's 'becoming' right?
> > if so they are very wrong
> > i thought it was more an adherence to such ethical concepts as empathy
> > > > and the d and g's
> > > > a transvaluation doesn't in itself advocate non-evolution/non-growth
> > >
> > > I didn't say a non-growth, I said (or indicated) a non-ending,
> > > non-ultimate, non-closure.
> > what?
> > here is a paradox for you then
> > which are you - end - no end?
> > (con't in next post)
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.