AUT: RE: Harald's profound point

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew,

I tend to agree on substance (on the intersections
between morality, or ethics, bodies and work) --
which in any case, was not Harald's point as I
recall.

But I'm not sure reducing this into point-scoring
exercise for Nietzsche against/or for Hegel (or
any other proper names for that matter) is
anything more than, ultimately, a familial
exercise, with all the questions of fidelity to
origins and (in literary terms) the Proper Canon,
and border policing that this implies.  I'm a
little tired of the flag-waving, frankly
territorialising exercise that is re-instated
every time it becomes an argument between Names.
Critique is as critique does.

So, while I do think that, for instance, Chris
might be persuaded to take another look at
postcolonial writings on subaltern movements, I
don't think it needs to be conducted as a contest
between theoretical paternities.

Angela


: liberties.  So what is
: this "morality" about?  Well, it comes
: down to wanting
: to impose social conformity on others,
: at any cost.
: And to regulate other people's private
: lives, what
: women do with their bodies, and what personal
: relations will be officially
: sanctioned.  And hatred
: of sex, especially "perverse" sex, combined with
: worship of work and a reified image of
: normality and
: propriety as "moral", are at the root
: of all this.
:
: Which certainly points towards
: Nietzsche, Deleuze and
: Reich.




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---