Relativism, Kant, Hite, Eddins

[jbor]

----------
>From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
>
>
> A consistent  relativist, on the other hand, must say that
> the statement "circumcising girls is  wrong" means
> "circumcising girls is not part of my moral universe" and
> completely  avoid the use of "wrong" outside his own ethical
> domain.
>
> The  inability of virtually all relativists to do this is an
> indication  that it's an untenable position.

Actually, the "consistent relativist" need only say that she or he thinks
such practices are "wrong" according to the laws, mores, cultural practices
et. al. by which he or she is bound/composed. Far from being "an untenable
position" it's entirely logical.

The practice of female genital mutilation is not considered "wrong" in
Somalia or the Sudan (legally, ethically, culturally ... ), and Somalian and
Sudanese refugees in Western countries still carry out the ritual on their
daughters. That I find the practice reprehensible, and that there are laws
in this society prohibiting it, are phenomena relative to me and my
upbringing and culture and the nation (i.e. "System") in which we (myself
and the refugees) are living now. That they do not find the ritual
circumcision of young girls "wrong" (and this includes not only the males
but the mothers *and* the daughters who are about to be circumcised) is,
similarly, relative to their upbringing, culture, values. It is not a
question of right and wrong; it's a question of what individuals believe.

In many Thai, Khmer and Indonesian communities young boys are used by
fishermen as sexual substitutes for women whilst the fishing party is away
from the village for a long period of time. Though this provokes my
revulsion it is accepted by all within the specific context, i.e. it is
*relative* to the culture etc. (And, we mustn't forget the bastardisation
which goes on covertly in English/Western boarding schools and military
enclaves, which has been going on for time immemorial ... see Malcolm
McDowell's 'If' ... don't forget those Spartans ... )

Similarly, in many Pacific Islander cultures the youngest male in an
all-male family is allocated a feminine role within the family. They are
coiffed, dressed and treated as girls from infancy, and expected to fulfil
the traditional domestic roles of the daughter. This has no bearing or
effect on their ultimate sexual proclivity, but is, in effect, the creation
of a "competing sexual order". It is not "evil" in any way.

J.G. von Herder is probably more relevant than Kant for Pynchon's fiction,
certainly in terms of language and human "will", but in terms of cultural
relativity especially. Like Kant, the struggle for a realisation of
Humanität (roughly speaking, "humanity") is for Herder a struggle for a
realisation of reason, but he goes further than Kant in noting that this
requires true freedom of the individual as well as an equally strong
formation (Bildung) of all human faculties, and that this Bildung should not
be prevented by the one-sided domination of any single cultural or moral
framework. While he strives for the ideals of the Enlightenment, his is a
different conception of human being, human language, and cultural and
historical development to Kant's. He does not say that any one culture (and
thus the language, morals and practices which are developed by or in that
culture) is any better or worse than any other culture. This seems to me to
be closer to Pynchon's conception than Kant.



----------
I'm not sure that I like Hite's use of the old-fashioned term "paramour" any
more than I do your thoroughly pejorative one ("catamite"). They both seem
to emphasise the "strangeness" of the boy and his willing role in the
relationship with Blicero. Pynchon does not use either term to refer to
Gottfried, as far as I can recall.

Hite:

    By invoking an alluring synthesis of Greek and Hebrew
    mythology, German idealism, and Kabbalized technology, the
    narrator is able to communicate both this loathing and the
    extent to which it permeated Western civilization ... (147)

NB that Hite contends that it is "the narrator", and *not* Blicero, who
invokes that "alluring synthesis". And, rather than the opposite, which is
your (so far unsupported) contention, Hite's note 37 about Rilke's Tenth
Elegy seems to me to imply that she sees Blicero's reading of Rilke as
accurate.

> Still waiting to here a serious critique of dwight eddins'
> *Gnostic Pynchon*

This is what you asked for:

> What binary has Eddins contracted? Can you provide another
> example other than the ones Kai posted?

And that is what you got. Perhaps one day you might be so kind as to respond
to some of the questions which have been addressed to you.

But, don't worry, I've got a recall notice posted on _The Gnostic Pynchon_
at the library as well.

best