yes, dominic, i agree,
even if i would still like to highlight topics and authors which/who deal
with keeping the "other" simply confined to his/her place in order to allow
a minimum survival space to the "I", i wouldn't dare to say to get to such
elegant interpretations as the one you are quoting, but simply to get in
touch with "her/him-self",
that would be enough for me, the time being,
great week-end to all, anny
> Now this is really interesting:
>
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n21/dast01_.html
>
> - review of a book about objectivity and the "dying-to-know" narrative
> in Victorian science and letters. Susan Haack makes an argument along
> similar lines about objectivity, that the will to be objective is a
> moral will which entails a setting-aside of personal calculation in
> one's reckonings with the world. But the self is a difficult thing to
> set aside; which is why at its extreme the will to be objective shades
> into a will to self-annihilation. Cue school-of-resentment spiel about
> the creepiness of aspirations towards transcendent authority and the
> untenability of the "view from nowhere". But the point may simply be to
> get the view from somewhere else: an immanent perspective can still be
> an impersonal one, since not all of the things in the world capable of
> having a perspective are persons. Personalism would dispute this, but
> personalism overrates the personal (to the point of inflating it into
> the political...). Simone Weil observed that if I put out a person's
> eye, it is not the person's *personality* that is injured (on a related
> note, I sometimes wonder whether the phrase "human rights abuses"
> doesn't obscure the fact that it is human beings, and not just their
> rights, that are being abused, a fact that remains even when you adjust
> the meaning of "rights" in accordance with local protocols). Weil's
> narrative is arguably a classic "dying-to-know" narrative.
>
> Dominic
>
|