Very well said.
regards,
Indrakaran.
--- bill harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Indra,
>
> You wrote,
> "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."
>
> Nor to me, either. But permit me to emphasize what we
> have here is a "Showdown at Credibility Gap". In short, I
> don't believe that the doctor is speaking the truth.
>
> Now regarding Mr. Mogg's comment on "role-playing",
> perhaps his language is more to the liking than mine of
> those who, like Ms Price, consider Symbolic
> Interaction(ism) to be a bit to abstract. But we're
> basically saying the same thing:
>
> Epistemology is the study of how we justify our
> beliefs/truth claims/the method of obtaining what we
> know.
> Yet in a sociological sense, it's obvious that for most
> of us "epistemology" boils down to belief in what those
> in authority say.
> Hence, Doctors of Psychiatric "Medicine" and Holy-guys
> peddling OT literature are, by virtue of their ascribed
> status (what office they represent as opposed to who
> they, personally, are), are accorded the capacity of
> truth tellers. The notion that there's a certain
> sociology to truth-justification is an old issue,
> interesting issue. That we interact with authority by
> virtue of uniforms is called "symbolic".
>
> Yet to a certain extent, received wisdom is fine enough.
> Both shrinks and preachers see lots of people and hear,
> accordingly, many bizarre stories for which advice is
> requested. Yet my contention is that for either of them
> to extend their hands-on practice into the realm of
> general theory--be it psychoanalysis or explaining away
> Abe's behavior as either symbolic testing of faith or
> Bronze-age Semitic normalcy --is to speak nonsense.
>
> Among others, Wittgenstein and Quine (but not Deleuze!)
> discussed this generalized issue under the rubric of
> language. A set of assumptions which generate
> explanations that are adequate to describe everyday
> affairs (God loves children who don't raid the cookie
> jar, my wife's frigid, my astrolabe says we are here)
> generates nonsense when "extended" to trying to
> understand why Jericho fell to nomads, how to predict the
> killers among a group of normally behaving men, and the
> bending of light by gravity.
>
> Religion is religion because it hysterically disagrees
> with having to adapt alternative frames of reference;
> preferring instead a one size fits all scheme. Philosophy
> speaks in the opposite tongue. Deleuze, for example,
> speaks of the challenge to Doxa by philosophy's virtue of
> discoursing in that grey area beyond the "actual": how
> we, ostensibly, galumph our way from nonsense to sense.
>
> Ciao, Bill
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: indra karan<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To:
>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Bill Harris's post 'Re: Last-minute
> rescue' [and PSYCHO]
>
>
> Hi,
> Sorry for the wrong reference in my earlier posting in
> referring to-
>
> 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.
>
> Hi ken,
>
> Thanks for your reflections on your site.I believe
> Hitch
> is-as is the case with all professional film makers,is
> partially obsessed with his film' success( Box office)
> but
> here in Psycho, unlike others, he is not resorting to
> using
> a popular or cheap technique.Hitch is in fact
> addressing us
> at many levels while showcasing and unwinding the world
> of
> Norman but also playing his prank/trick( not the one to
> give up when there is a chance as a film maker's
> privilege)
> with audience in terms of their smartness in to reading
> his
> work, besides ensuring that he has enough to make it
> work.
>
> My ploy (intended)in calling Norman A "Coward" has a
> justifiable explanation refer to your quote-
>
> "Norman is a role-player, too. As the psychiatrist
> says,
> 'When reality came too close' he dressed up, even
> wearing a
> cheap wig of female hair".
>
> when reality comes knocking the door he is either
> retreating or hiding in the women/mother ( which is
> also a
> farce as in,the smart Norman is using her as a ploy- as
> an
> excuse).
> Psychosis is also the reflection of intelligence albeit
> contentional.
>
> "At the end, as he sits contemplatively in his cell and
> intones (in Mother's voice), 'He wouldn't even harm a
> fly".
>
> As in your statement,
>
> Epistemologically, this is to say that at a certain
> point
> symbolic interactionism loses its ability to coherently
> describe the world, there by becoming nonsense-
>
> There by Psycho as a filmic process in the hands of
> Hitch
> becomes elusive and unyielding to both the
> psychologist
> and philosopher( as in Bill)and as a Film Maker's
> right(By
> assuming an independent entity by itself as a
> subject),it
> becomes a spectacle inviting the participation of the
> audience in transcending cinematic experience as a
> possible
> reality.
>
> Hitch is not a Psycho Director. he has a very deep
> understanding of christian ( religious)morality.So
> Hitch is
> confronting us at many levels, That is what makes his
> works
> a Subliminal experience( refer to your Buddhist friends
> observations).
>
> True, I can't agree with BH that Norman Bates is an
> exemplar of Nietzschean values, but here is how he puts
> the
> matter:
> 'In the simplest of language, ignoring society's number
> one
> rule [against murder] for the sake of personal pleasure
> is
> about as Nietzschean as one can get.'
>
> Hmm
>
> 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.
>
> Besides the filmmakers point of view both positions
> stated
> above are tenable and possibly more explanations to
> fallow,where by-
> Norman is an 'archetype', who can not be reduced as a
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
*
*
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]
**
|
