We do agree on this point, that:
>cruelty is never justifiable or escusable. When it is perceived,
>then responsible and caring actionbehooves us to change that situation.
I wouldn't lump pain in with cruelty, though. And, perhaps I am
wrong, but self-enlightened sadists (those who know that they get
pleasure from hurting others) could choose not to hurt; then they
would be the most caring and responsible of all, since they would
know more profoundly than the rest of us what care & responsibility
are about.
I say "no" to cruelty, Francoise, like you do. I hope the rest of
what I've said makes more sense to you. It's the best I could do.
- Judy
In refusing pain and cruelty I am neither
>denying nor suppressing it (Eva), I am saying "no" because to me that is
>the only way that anything will ever change.
>
At 10:05 AM 4/25/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
> > > > Pain is inevitable. Cruelty is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I refuse to sign on that one:
> > >
> > >"Pain is "evitable" like cruelty. They are two sides of the same coin
> > >called "sado-masochism", in my view.
> >
> > Hi, Francoise & all,
> > The difference between pain & cruelty is one of agency, it
> > seems to me. And whereas felt pain may be transformed by the subject into
> > narratives, theories, products, different self/world relations, the
> > subject is powerless to do anything about felt cruelty (suffering
> > that one feels as a result of cruelty can be transformed only
> > when one is out of cruelty's reach). Same with sadism & masochism, ugly
> > words that mask the complexity of experience in my view. Instead of
> > condemning other people for how they get their pleasure, or condemning
> > murky motivations behind deeds we see as hurtful, it is more ethically
> > compelling to ask how knowledgeable we are about the effect
> > we have on others, how we imagine decency, and what we do to modulate
> > our relations with the world in order to allow for mutual learning/
> > humanizing of one another. I'd have more respect & trust in a
> > conscientious sado-masochist pair than in a self-ignorant pair of
> > do-gooders. Though I suppose I would want to stay furthest away from
> > self-ignorant sadists & masochists. And from anyone who can not
> > or wants not to imagine decency.
> >
> > - Judy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hi Judy, Hi everyone, I must admit that after reading your message I was
>puzzled because I never put any judments in my refusal of pain and
>cruelty. I refuse pain and cruelty which I see as sad-masochism because
>in my mind pain and cruelty are very separate from pleasure and joy. That
>these experiential constructs are fused in ways of being is another
>set of isssues that are fine with me. That these are decent ways of being
>(or indecent) again never struck my mind! Am I understanding what you
>are saying?
>I also wanted to quote Jaoo "While we get up the contradictions...enlighten
>the emchanisms used to oppress, and share our discoveries with syndiates..
>we walk in the direction of one society, more democratic, I hope" but for
>very different reasons than you do in answer to Robin's questions
>about inevitable perceptions and acts of cruelty. Again, in my view
>cruelty is never justifiable or escusable. When it is perceived,
>then responsible and caring actionbehooves us to change that situation.
>And as Jaoo was saying with every time that one says the horror, enlightens
>the mechanisms, the ideal is bcoming material and it is one more step
>in the direction of change. In refusing pain and cruelty I am neither
>denying nor suppressing it (Eva), I am saying "no" because to me that is
>the only way that anything will ever change.
>
>Francoise
>Francoise Herrmann
>fherrmann who-is-at igc.org
>PS. Hugs to Jay.
>
>
>
Judy Diamondstone
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
.................................................