Comments on: Shame, with Love at strife. http://www.nazg.com/iqrai/index.php/2008/07/13/shame-with-love-at-strife/ Sliding down the banisters of the ivory tower. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:49:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: vivek iyer http://www.nazg.com/iqrai/index.php/2008/07/13/shame-with-love-at-strife/#comment-1618 vivek iyer Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:04:11 +0000 http://www.nazg.com/iqrai/?p=154#comment-1618 I'm guessing the notion here is that shame is visceral while guilt is verbal; shame harks back to infantile heteronomy and poor theory of mind, guilt is in line with Kantian autonomy and sophisticated theory of mind- 'well the intention that I intended to have, knowing what I did in that that very knowledge was likely to be false and so on and so forth.' The problem here is that, for young people, negotiating the road from shame to guilt, from heteronomy to autonomy, is very much part of the sort of the sort of inculcation into sophisticated linguistic and cognitive skills so necessary to the knowledge economy on which our pensions will depend. In other words neither shame nor guilt will do. There is no option except that of taking the high road of knowledge- no short-cuts even for members of your own Church- though we know in advance that this is a sublatable univocity- it has to be, otherwise our economy will freeze up just when we need that new hip or heart transplant or whatever. But, while on the topic of shame and guilt- what's up with the neo-cons? How come they don't got any? I think something terrible happened when Trostkyite nutters- who believed they alone had the right to fuck up the world coz they were smarter than us- became neo cons nutters who thought that, since they were smarter than us, they really ought to prod us to like immediately fuck up the world coz did we mention we're way smarter than you? I say this not because I truly believe that Trotskyite nutters tend to get killed by their own people whereas neo-con nutters are deplorably long lived. Rather it is because the important work of trivialing the master works of long dead shit-heads has moved into higher gear. I’m guessing the notion here is that shame is visceral while guilt is verbal; shame harks back to infantile heteronomy and poor theory of mind, guilt is in line with Kantian autonomy and sophisticated theory of mind- ‘well the intention that I intended to have, knowing what I did in that that very knowledge was likely to be false and so on and so forth.’
The problem here is that, for young people, negotiating the road from shame to guilt, from heteronomy to autonomy, is very much part of the sort of the sort of inculcation into sophisticated linguistic and cognitive skills so necessary to the knowledge economy on which our pensions will depend. In other words neither shame nor guilt will do. There is no option except that of taking the high road of knowledge- no short-cuts even for members of your own Church- though we know in advance that this is a sublatable univocity- it has to be, otherwise our economy will freeze up just when we need that new hip or heart transplant or whatever.
But, while on the topic of shame and guilt- what’s up with the neo-cons? How come they don’t got any?
I think something terrible happened when Trostkyite nutters- who believed they alone had the right to fuck up the world coz they were smarter than us- became neo cons nutters who thought that, since they were smarter than us, they really ought to prod us to like immediately fuck up the world coz did we mention we’re way smarter than you?
I say this not because I truly believe that Trotskyite nutters tend to get killed by their own people whereas neo-con nutters are deplorably long lived. Rather it is because the important work of trivialing the master works of long dead shit-heads has moved into higher gear.

]]> By: David Broockman http://www.nazg.com/iqrai/index.php/2008/07/13/shame-with-love-at-strife/#comment-760 David Broockman Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:13:37 +0000 http://www.nazg.com/iqrai/?p=154#comment-760 Agreed, mostly. This wouldn't discourage the sex, just sexual health, already no doubt a huge barrier for a 15 year old. If we're to agree (which, according to a conversation on the porch, Helen does) that parents shouldn't be doing shaming, and given your analysis that it doesn't make much sense for people selling you items necessary for your sexual health, from whence shall the shame flow? It does seem like there's a certain amount of shame you'd feel from walking down the street at 15 with a pregnant belly - and that I'm willing to concede that you should feel. And it doesn't seem like the shame you feel walking down the street when strangers look at you is really as a result of the thoughts of the strangers, but as a result of broader social norms. How those norms come about and are maintained is the interesting and important question, I think. Agreed, mostly. This wouldn’t discourage the sex, just sexual health, already no doubt a huge barrier for a 15 year old.

If we’re to agree (which, according to a conversation on the porch, Helen does) that parents shouldn’t be doing shaming, and given your analysis that it doesn’t make much sense for people selling you items necessary for your sexual health, from whence shall the shame flow? It does seem like there’s a certain amount of shame you’d feel from walking down the street at 15 with a pregnant belly - and that I’m willing to concede that you should feel. And it doesn’t seem like the shame you feel walking down the street when strangers look at you is really as a result of the thoughts of the strangers, but as a result of broader social norms. How those norms come about and are maintained is the interesting and important question, I think.

]]>