Let us wage a war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us

activate the differences and save the honor of the name Lyotard pg 82
THE FINE LINE
We must therefore resist the ethnocentric tendency to regard our own way
of classifying reality as the only reasonable way to do it

This relates to my interest of how race and class shape your

involvement in a social movement. When you grow up in a household
that has certain values and a certain reality, that (usually) becomes a
foundation for you for the rest of your life. A lot of people raise their
kids in the way that they were raised. Sometimes, this rigidity gets a
lot of people into trouble. As somebody who was brought up in a
predominately white neighbored in an upper-middle class white family,
I sometimes find it hard to accept other realities as being valid.
Everyone experiences their own reality different based on a number of
social factors (race, social class, gender, etc). Because you cant
change a lot of these basic social factors, it can be hard to accept any
other reality thats not yours.
o This is the problem with people who are opposed to social justice
movements. The reality that they have created for themselves
has no wiggle room for any other reality to be considered
acceptable. For the Black Lives Matter movement, I guess, both
sides can be considered rigid (the other side being the blue
lives matter group).

SEPT 14 NOTES:

Knowledge has to proven, but who gets to say what proof is correct?
o Devils advocate??????? Could be interesting lol |:
o

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-americans-dont-care-about-prisonrape/

Why does America love jokes about rape in prison? Dont

drop the soap do you know what they do to guys like me (you)
in prison?, etc

Knowledge of the offence, knowledge of the offender,

knowledge of the law: these three conditions make it
possible to ground a judgement in truth. But now quite a
different question of truth is inscribed in the course of
penal judgement. The question is no longer simply: Has
the act been established and is it punishable?It is no
longer simply: Who committed it? But: How can we
assign the casual process that produced it? Where did it
originate in the author himself? Instinct, unconscious,
environment, heredity? It is no longer simply: What law
punishes this offence? But: What would be the most
appropriate measures to take? How do we see the future
development of the offender? What would be the best of
way of rehabilitating him? pg 19 of the condemned
BAUDRILLARD: SIMULACRA
law and order themselves might really be
nothing more than a simulation pg 180
Someone who simulates an illness produces
in himself some of the symptoms (Littre).
Thus, feigning or dissimulating leaves the
reality principle intact: the difference is always
clear, it is only masked; whereas simulation
threatens the difference between true and
false, between real and imaginary. Since
the simulator produces true symptoms, is he
or she ill or not? The simulator cannot be
treated objectively either as ill, or as not ill.
Psychology and medicine stop at this point,
before a thereafter undiscoverable truth of the
illness. For if any symptom can be produced,
and can no longer by accepted as a fact of
nature, then every illness may be considered
as simulatable and simulated, and medicine
loses its meaning because it only knows how to
treat true illness by their objective causes.

To sum up, ever since the new penal system that defined by the great
codes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been in operation, a
general process has led judges to judge something other than the crimes;
they have been led in their sentences to do something other than judge; and

the power of judging has been transferred, in part, to other authorities than
the judges of the offence. pg 22 condemned
Of course, we pass sentence, but this sentence is not in direct relation to
the crime. It is quite clear for us it functions as a way of treating a criminal.
We punish, but this is a way of saying that we wish to obtain a cure. Today,
criminal justice functions and justifies itself only by this perpetual reference
to something other than itself, by this unceasing reinscription in non-juridical
systems. Its fate is to be redefined by knowledge. pg 22 condemned