From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:28:34 EST Subject: Re: boundaries in flow In a message dated 10/26/98 5:47:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, Kalapsyche-AT-aol.com writes: << this notion is necessary for any sort of practical interaction, knowledge aquisition, and practice. A dismissal of this notion would then leave us in a world of flux in which no orientation was possible. >> I think we can legitimately question this approach. Simply because a notion "works" does not mean that it is the "only" way to work, and if we can illuminate certain negative side effects of that "operationalism", then it is only conventionality that keeps us from constructing new concepts that are more marvelous and specific. And perhaps it would behoove us to enter into the acid trip of "a world of flux in which no orientation was possible". Is that really true? Or would orientation occur along other sorts of coordinates? A smooth space rather than a striated space, perhaps? There's a danger in a conventionalized pragmatics. "It works" is not enough. How marvelously does it work? The segregation, compartmentalization, and quarantining of disciplinary boundaries is what Guattari wanted to supercede in his notion of "transversality". Ultimately these notions are notions of "private property" which is ultimately what AntiOedipus is attempting to supercede. Capitalism wants to project property lines everywhere, even into its knowledge realms. But flows don't respect those property lines. They won't stay within the house, the family, or any institution. They won't stay within one department, and the repression necessary to force them to do so on any sort of a molar level is disturbing. All sorts of alternative conceptions are conceivable. One could discuss "contiguities" where two flows touch and differentiate. One could discuss "agoras" where exchange takes place. Why project a Statist notion onto the universe? Why not a marketplace notion? Why not a sexual notion? (Indeed in your reference to lovemaking you open up this option.) To give the word "boundary" an alternative definition is all fine and good for those who are privy to the new definition, but most are going to hear the social meanings in circulation. One could discuss "multiple contact points". Or one could, radically, delineate those conditions where "boundaries" of any sort are even possible, and in so doing, discover they are a minority amongst phenomena! For "intermix" may be the norm, and "boundary" becomes an issue with relatively homogenous or purified forms. (un)leash
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005