Re: Otherness

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: AAA Anyone?"
• Previous message: Daniel A. Foss: "[withheld]'s Thunder Rites points of gen, ah, lt col. int"
• Maybe in reply to: E. Taborsky: "Otherness"
• Next in thread: Adrienne Dearmas: "Re: Otherness"

Edwina Taborsky's paragraph on anthropology, Lacanian psychology and
philosophical approaches to oppositional identities was a nice summary, with
which I mostly agree, but there are a few points which might benefit from
clarification.
I see binary opposition (dualizing very different from dichotomizing which
would be biPOLAR opposition) as a necessary methodological step in the
interpretation of systems (webs, or, ore recently, pools) of meaning (or
discourse, concepts, things etc).
The problem seems to be in the connotations which 'opposition' drags into
all of this. Opposition, in my mind, does not imply absolutely fixed
opposing position, but rather, contrast. Thus, when Saussure says "in
language (langue) there is only difference," he means contrast.
peace,
Matt
__________________________________________________________
Matt Tomaso.
TOMASO@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU
Anthropology. University of Texas at Austin.
Phone/Fax 512-453-6256
__________________________________________________________

• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: AAA Anyone?"
• Previous message: Daniel A. Foss: "[withheld]'s Thunder Rites points of gen, ah, lt col. int"
• Maybe in reply to: E. Taborsky: "Otherness"
• Next in thread: Adrienne Dearmas: "Re: Otherness"