I'm tempted to say something incredible rude and childish here, to the tune
of 'I've done more reading than you have, na, na, na-ha, and mine's bigger
than yours, lets get out our theoretical pri**ks and give the feminists a
field day, but... Oh hell, I will anyway. I've read Locke, the bible,
Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx - you name it, I've read it - and I know very well
where my ideas come from, so don't be so patronising (pant, pant, fight,
fight). Haraway uses the expression in her Primate Visions (London,
Routledge, 1989), Simians, Cyborgs and Women (Free Association Books 1993)
and Modest Witness@SecondMillenium (Routledge 1997).
And you still haven't answered the question... Who appointed you God? I
don't think _anybody_, be they Muslim, Christian, liberal, athiest or stark
raving nut-case can profess to have a vision outside time and space. It's
the problem of all transcendent theory: based on impossible to justify
metaphysics (and yes, that includes liberalism -and by the way, there are
at least three versions of that, each of which is radically different from
the other, so which one are you talking about precisely?
Graham
At 02:13 PM 2/22/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Graham Gardner referred to
>
>> what Haraway has called the 'God-trick' of disembodied,
>> omnipotent vision
>
>and asked me
>
>> Who appointed you
>> God that you should have the right to decide for us?
>
>The claim, that radicalism usurps the the position of God, derives from early
>liberal thought. Arguing in a 99% Christian context, for a model which we
>would now call a 'free market of opinions', John Locke especially
attempted to
>undermine radicals, with their own Biblical style of argument.
>
>Later liberals could simply say: "there is no absolute truth, only opinion".
>Post-modernists restated this liberal ideology, in their rejection of
>meta-narratives and prioritising of discourse.
>
>That was not possible in the society of 1689. The norm was that the State
(the
>monarch) was entitled (and obliged) to enforce true religion. Locke argued
not
>simply for religious tolerance, but for reducing religious life to a debate
>among private clubs. This is still an issue for Muslim critics of liberal
>society, who point out (correctly) that it excludes the possibility of an
>Islamic society.
>
>Locke wrote:
>
>"If, like the Captain of our salvation, they sincerely desired the good of
>souls, they would tread in the steps and follow the perfect example of that
>Prince of Peace, who sent out His soldiers to the subduing of nations, and
>gathering them into His Church, not armed with the sword, or other
instruments
>of force, but prepared with the Gospel of peace and with the exemplary
>holiness of their conversation. This was His method. Though if infidels were
>to be converted by force, if those that are either blind or obstinate were to
>be drawn off from their errors by armed soldiers, we know very well that it
>was much more easy for Him to do it with armies of heavenly legions than for
>any son of the Church, how potent soever, with all his dragoons."
>
>http://catalog.com/jamesd/tolerati.htm
>
>I suggest you also look at the home page of that site, to see whose company
>Locke now keeps...
>http://catalog.com/jamesd/
>
>I don't know if Donna Haraway or Graham Gardner realise where they get their
>ideas from, I don't even know if Donna Haraway said that anyway. But it
>exemplifies the pervasiveness of liberal thought.
>
>
>
>--
>Paul Treanor
>
>
Graham Gardner
Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3DB
Wales
UK
Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|