terror and error
June 3rd, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: terror and error :: terror and error :: terror and error :: terror and error
Tags: terror
On 03/06/2006, at 6:10 PM, michaelP wrote:
> Malcom asks:
>
> > If anyone else on list or on the site would care to discuss the
> problem of
> > “terror”, pro or contra, please feel free to join in.
>
> Malcom, the question of terrors and terrorisms (and of related
> errors and errorisms) where we of necessity begin thinking these in
> the very middle of their topicalities and embrace (we are both sub-
> ject to such, terrorised, and they remain a subject for our
> ruminations) involves such a confusion and complexity that it seems
> necessary (to me) for any discussion to proceed, without too much
> initial error, we ought to try and ask what the heck terror(ism) is
> without merely and only resorting to providing question-provoking
> examples to illustrate and argue it… I remember somewhere
> Heidegger asks as to the nature of (technological) pain… as a
> question (he) left unanswered. Further, perhaps questions of pro/
> contra are part of the confusioning and might enter later once we
> have thought terror itself.
Hi Michael,
I disagree with your proposition that for these discussions to
proceed we need to forgo any ontic examples without first discussing
the concept of “terror” in the abstract. This is a multi-threaded
open forum for discussion and quite capable of sustaining multiple
threads on the problem of “terror” from multiple perspectives and
catering to multiple interests.
What you would need to do is first open another thread, perhaps
titled “terror and error” then proceed to lay out the terms of
reference for your argument. The most obvious point of reference for
this discussion (to me) would be Heidegger’s notion of the they-self
and its fascination with death, as in its constant denial of the
authentic angst of death, which also means of dissolution, time and
of the threat of the ‘other’, in constantly turning away to the
distracting curiosities of everyday life. The concept of “terror” for
us privileged overfed moderns is something that is mostly confined to
the idiot box and its never ending stream of annoying ‘terror
threats’, ongoing war, reports of fundamentalist terrorists laying
wait under the bed, of government leaders voicing grandiose inanities
while ransacking the public wealth, of torture, mass murder, illegal
detention, domestic surveillance, oil supply problems, economic
problems, potentially catastrophic environmental problems and so on.
We live with “terror”, and over the last 5 years it has come to
dominate the background noise of our everyday lives, so yes, since
you brought it up, what do you think about “terror” itself?
Cheers,
Malcolm
***************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
Electronic Arts
School of Communications and Contemporary Arts
Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries
Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford St, Mount Lawley
Perth Western Australia
+61 08 9370 6034
