Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:52:00 +1000 (EST) From: Mr Christopher McMahon <Christopher.McMahon-AT-jcu.edu.au> Subject: Re: chris Dear Alessandra, Thanks for the input. I agree, I think Tom & me are arguing in cloud cukoo land - or perhaps Humptydumptyville where words mena exactly what we want them to mean, no more, no less. When reading your comments, I certainly was worried. Particularly when you pointed out the justification of sociopolitical irresponsibility that can attend either/or a will to deferral or a desubjectification of position (what I said about the other positioning you). But I just want to add two things. My wife is Chinese, poeple position her everyday in very bland ways. - possibly I am being positioned too, but don't notice this for lack of a lable (or maybe "crank" fits). She is not responsible for the position she is forced to take up. Is she responsible for the way she responds to this positioning? BwOs etc. Rhizomes, war machines, are irresponible because they are non-subjective. People can get hurt when lines of flight get going. That's the subjective cost. Basically, what I am saying is that I do believe in so called "nonviolence" in the everyday sense. But I dont think its a metaphysical thing capable of being opposed to violence. I think nonviolence is part of a regulative system. Kill there, not there. My classes are peaceful because the bad people are kept out (by force if need be). My marriage is co-operative because here we deny (filter, filter....) the agression that we apply elsewhere. A kiss can become a bite so easily. I think its wrong to always condemn violence - just as I think nonviolence can be a good strategy. Thanks again, Chris.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005