It's me, Ken M, returning not to the fray - for now - but to point out that
the wrong people are being attributed with certain things.
Just two instances ...
Bill seems to think that Indra said the following:
"I thought Norman killed out of pain (berated by a jealous
'Mother' whenever he fancied another woman) rather than for
pleasure, and that one of the things we know about him is
that he hasn't 'grown up' but has become fixated at a level
of Oedipal immaturity. Whatever pleasure he has found in
placating 'Mother' comes not from killing but rather from
'secondary gains' like playing the dutiful son, or,
sometimes, dressing up as 'Mother' herself and having
'conversations' with her. That doesn't sound particularly
Nietzschean to me."
No, it was me, Ken M, who said that. On my website.
Earlier, Indra posted this:
Epistemologically, this is to say that at a certain point
symbolic interactionism loses its ability to coherently
describe the world, there by becoming nonsense.
- Ken Mogg.
Sorry, I [Ken M] didn't say that. It was Bill!
Thanks for letting me cover myself/clarify!
I may say something further (mainly on PSYCHO) in a separate post, later.
Thanks - Ken M
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|