Date:        Sun, 26 Feb 95 10:45:26 EST
From: Karen Ocana <CXKO-AT-musica.mcgill.ca>


I like to think of Spinoza as a philosopher who'd have no qualms
about rocks breaking; who, in keeping with his passtime of pursuing
spiderfights would rather enjoy smashing stones--to hear them sing,
to produce stonesongs. For is not the ethos of stones stoning? to
stone and be stoned, to release their sound and fury?

It would seem a more Hegelian stance to be content with the
preservation of a stony individualism, to revile any crossing of
stony boundaries, to mourn the smashing of a stone. When smashing
is just what stones *can do*.

So much for the politics of stones, (and studiously avoiding the
actual issue of accidentalism, etc.) From here to people politics,
I can only venture to think that rocks-held-tight Hegelianism would
look a hell of a lot less smashing than Spinozism, which, caution
prevailing, would still want to see an active engagement of bodies
with other bodies, the more intersections, the better.
Karen

     ------------------