 |
 |
I know this is unrelated (and I am rethinking, rereading the previous issues) but at lunch today we discussed Canada's failed Meech Lake Accord which attempted to resolve historical legal conflicts imbedded and unresolved in our Constitution, our way of life. I thought it would make a great documentary within an overview of Canada the internally "fragmented" with the chain of conflicts remaining ultimately unresolved because of the manifest pride and egos by the final decision makers, the lawyers. To clarify, the federal-provincial jurisdiction issue wrt sharing of powers is intertwined with the issue of sovereignty-association with French speaking Quebec (they wanted to split), language and culture (we are the most multi-cultured place on earth, particularly in Toronto), geographic (east, west, Maritime, central , our northern territories) etc. The politicians reached a form of consensus and asked a task force of lawyers to draft an acceptable version of the agreement. Stupidly they gave the lawyers a deadline. The point being that giving the task of mediation, contract negotiation and resolution to a group of trained warriors is a venture designed to fail and exemplifies Canada the fragmented not only in the traditional senses but in the psychological structures of the groups of power as well. In particular, the lawyers usurped the power of the politicians and negated any agreements because of infighting. I wasn't there and one must be careful of potential defamation claims but I hear that specific individuals/cliques refused to co-operate because of the fear of being seen to capitulate (lose the argument). Reminds one of Freud's poo (Freud's analysis of anal-retentives in terms of parsimony, stubbornness and orderliness). This aspect of unintended "treachery" has probably been addressed numerous times in film already (I am not well versed in the history of film) but the lawyer-bashing aspect renders it more interesting. Regards, Richard Original Message ----- From: "Ross Macleay" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 9:15 PM Subject: Critique of Heidegger > On the Heidegger discussion, I think Joseph's comments on how to read H are > very useful. You just have to get into the right way of looking at things - > or rather, of not just looking at things and thinghood. Then the language > is clear. > > Even so, I am in Susanna's camp. I am wary of the 'ontological need'. > Adorno, who is a wonderful philosopher of art, is also the author of the > best critique I know of Heidegger - 'Negative Dialectics'. > > (Aside. Is either one though a filmphilosopher? Is cinephilia a > prerequisite? or philosophilia?) > > Ross >