These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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