no bob, it is much more. Simple facticity is to be elaborated, and why?
jf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Guevara" <guevara.guevara@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: autoporn
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:owner-
> > heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of michaelP
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 9:58 AM
> > To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: autoporn
> >
> > Apart from the noble rene, most of the posts on this list and generally
in
> > the media, concerned with the matter of the disgusting events
> > eventualising
> > in Iraq have been concerned to speak of and show the rights and wrongs
> > (and
> > it is wrong and bad etc) of the tortures and humiliations, the shame and
> > blame, etc, and of increasing the proliferation of the awful stories as
> > reportage and sensation and suffused with moral outrage and
righteousness.
> > This is, in its own way, fine and in its self righteous as righteous be,
> > but... But, when this reappears on a philosophical list without
> > (proximally,
> > for the most part) any real attempt to display the phenomena in (say) a
> > phenomenological or (say) an analytical manner, i.e., re-appearing as
just
> > bare (repeated) reportage/sensationalism/moral-outrage, then it seems to
> > me
> > to be veering abysmally close to the proximity of pornography. Has
no-one
> > read Ballard's 'Crash' or 'The Atrocity Exhibition'? It seems we are
> > mesmerised and even excited by torture and humiliation (or at least by
> > stories of such) and thus seem unable (by being transfixed) to look at
in
> > any other way than by moralistic rejection or prolific sensationalised
> > publicity (embrace). One might expect this from the media and the so-
> > called
> > PITS, but on a philosophy list...?
> >
> > At the moment, it seems, according to the very media responsible for
much
> > of
> > its appearance and profusion, pornography (just porn available and
> > innocuous, just like corn) is OK, normal(ised), popular... What does the
> > team think? Is it OK to re-produce the porn of torture
> > (reportage/displaying
> > graphically/delving/swamping)? Or do we want to perform an other
> > comportment
> > with respect to the phenomena?
>
>
> Hi MichaelP,
>
> The answer is self-evident. Don't you think?
>
> Bob
>
>
> >
> > regards
> >
> > michaelP
> >
> >
> > --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
