Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:11:43 +0100 (BST)
From: D Hugh-Jones <dash2-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Phew! + theology



Phew, exams have finished. Just when you thought it was safe to 
sub*scribe.... He's back.

I have to admit that my opinion of the list has altered. I still have 
strong reservations about D&G (and 'theory' in general) but it is good to 
see people trying to define things, and even better to see people 
actually *disagreeing* with one another, as opposed to the old 'your 
perspective is really valuable' thang.

Re theology. I just read an article about Dennis Potter (by an 
unreconstructed psychanalyst... sigh) in which he was cited as saying 
'God is not the bandage, He is the wound', and that the desire for God is 
created precisely by 'His' wholeness, 'His' indifference - in fact, 'His' 
otherness.

On a Marxian tip, could we believe that God (in trad. understanding) is 
an alienated image of A. who we desire and B. what we desire? If so, 
desire would have a double meaning - we desire something (to fulfill a 
putative lack - alienated desire as lack) and we desire _to be_ something 
(desire as really a force, pushing us towards a future). 

If so, then I suppose the image we have of desire should be not one of 
lack but one of magnetism, in which a symmetrical force of attraction is 
created by the charge of one particular object.

Blimey, I *am* playing with this language and beginning to like it! I'll 
have you know that I still think any proposition like this should be 
_tested_.


Dave Hugh-Jones
A Rush and a radical Pushivity and the Land is ours
dash2-AT-cam.ac.uk







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