Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:56:09 -0600
From: David Cook <groundz0-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the-institutional-alienation-via-becoming-mOther-of-a-war-machine


I am not necessarily disagreeing with where you say that "Ecstacy would not be
an erasing of such parameters . . . but a lack of focus upon them".  Which
seems to mean that in this definition ecstacy does not erase the boundaries,
only a shift in the focus so as to focus (I'm filling in here, unsure with
what you would say) on the connections.  However, it does seem that ecstacy
has been (leaving aside for the moment D&G) defined in ways which such erasing
or fusion comes about.  This does not mean that ecstacy has to be limited to
that definition.  Or that D&G are stuck with that definition.  But I am still
debating whether such a redefinition of ecstasy has been done by D&G, or of
connections without fusions.  Or, maybe I should say, done enough.

David Cook



DRMARCIAL-AT-aol.com wrote:

> re "To
>
> achieve singularity through conflict ", reminds me of Hegel's master-slave
> dialectic. Can't imagine D&G would want to evoke this...
> Boundaries may represent parameterizations ... Ecstasy would not be an
> erasing of such parameters, which are only ideal, but a lack of focus upon
> them...