« Liberality for All: new extremist right comix | Main | kewpid/stupid »

August 03, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



I think you are absolutely right. Anonymity can be a source of sadistic pleasure, such as the case with various blogosphere trolls. Instead of promoting the universality of reason, anonymity can actually undermine it. The "veil of ignorance" in the original position comes to mind.


That's what I should have titled this post!! Maybe on long sunday....

Charles R

I like what you're writing here, Jodi, in combining together what John and I have raised about your own thoughts on this. It occurs to me to ask, though, if we can also go on and say that the gleeful excess is something already present in that collective of reason. Or, is something present in *that* reason.


Yes! I was trying to get that across, but I think my two level approach bifurcated the matter excessively. So, yes, I think the gleeful excess is part of, within, attached to 'that' reason. You can't get pure reason, or reason purified of the excess--and, the very drive to purify is itself a mark of that excess (this is also the way I read Plato's Republic.)

Charles R

Ah, well, I am a slow reader. ^_^

But so I better get what you're writing, is it your suggestion there are two stains, or two ways of being excessive (for instance, the stain of bias needing purification by the use of an objective, "veiled" reason is a different stain from the stain of the unrestrained use of "objective" reason; the excess of/within particularity is different from the excess of/within reason) or that these stains and excesses are one and the same? Or something ambiguous among the options?


the excess/stain is the same: its the place on the loop (like a mobius strip) where the drive to purify becomes itself the stain that needs to be eliminated (this is Zizek's argument).

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo