From: "Jon Rubin" <j_rubin-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: incomprehensible, uninvestigated, tropes Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:57:45 PST Dear Soup, Do you really mean this????? Philosophy is not likely to advance where its practitioners protect & repeat one another's absurd or incomprehensible sentences. Regards, Soup How un-Deleuzoguattarian!! Don't really see the difference between practitioners repeating the incomprehensible and Rorty's congenial dialogue - neither have ever produced a single concept. _Notes for an ivestiagation of tropes_ ? Deleuze wrote that the Stoics were the first to invent a philosophy of language with the embracing of the Idea of incorporeal transformations but does anybody have any ideas how to fit the Greek and especially Roman studies of Rhetoric as a how-to manual of intensive crowd control into a philosophy of language. It needs to be really specific - transforming crowd of 100 in demos not the same as transforming crowd of thousands at Neuremberg not the same as Levi's advert on TV, on billboard Is it a case of channeling, or producing? transforming or creating - and if the unconscious knows no lack, knows nothing, if desire is purely productive then how can you be made to desire anything? (desire still inevitably being used in two different ways?) is a "trope" an order word, or an assemblage in particular regimes of signs? component or assemblage? is a "trope" usefully separable from its environment or are they only studiable "in the wild" ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005