JISCMail - FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives

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.

----- Original Message -----

From: indra karan

To: [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
'nutcase' and at the same time he is not a Hero in any
convention.

Ken's query as to-

Who is seeking 'spiritual rescue'? Norman Bates? Or
perhaps the viewer, who has seen the shower-murder
invested with a 'blinding white light'.

Maybe both of those?

Yes both,where in the Director Hitch offers the possibility
for all of us to examine and arrive at respective truths(
not to get caught up in duality), which in essence are the
reflections of the Truth itself.('blinding white light').

regards,
Indrakaran.

--- Connie Price <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Whose words?
>
> Epistemologically, this is to say that at a certain point
> symbolic interactionism loses its ability to coherently
> describe the world, there by becoming nonsense.
>
>
> *
> *
> 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]
> **
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
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]
**