Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

David,


On Jul 11, 2010, at 2:26 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:

> So if we take it that, say, a baby is
> having the experience within a culture that has reified "pain" (as
> something that can be attributed to babies under certain circumstances),
> then the baby's first person experience is not pain, because she or he
> has not yet appropriated it as such. 

It is pain-for-others, but not yet pain-for-self. So it both is and isn't pain. 

>  Michael's point, that
> Martin grudgingly acceded to, is that SOME experiences (for example,
> perhaps, pain), are not subject to revision--perhaps because they are
> too closely related to biological imperatives 

Did I accede to this, David? I don't think so. I tried to suggest that experiences such as love and pain are mediated, organized, colonized by practices and technologies of romance, sexuality, eroticism, treatment, penance, etc.

>  how can we gain insight into originary processes when all we have
> are data about conditions afterwards.

Can you spell out a bit more the problem you see, for my not-yet-coffee-inspired brain?

Martin

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca