From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk> Subject: RE: RE: Re: Homeopathic thread is relevant; think again Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 21:56:20 -0000 Allow me, please, to run down the list of your responses to this whole ethics question: (1) Deny the question has any relevance, painting the questioners as people thinking in simple binarisms. (2) Claim that the question is of no interest to you (perhaps not quite as strong a dismissal as (1) above, since you are putting it in personal terms, but a dismissal nonetheless), while suggesting an alternate way of setting the issue (that is, rather than judging in terms of good and bad, right and wrong, or whatever, because you feel these are useless binarisms, you suggest that D&G would appreciate, albeit critically. This, you claim would be an ethical as opposed to a moral stance, though you go no further to outline why. (3) Then, when the question is put to you again, this time in terms of the alternative you suggest, just cite four people, without bothering to explain either their ideas, your understanding of their ideas, or your own ideas. At least your explanation of your position in terms of your debt to situationism offers some possibility of discussion, although it seems unlikely that you could explain from it why it might be desirable to engage in the sort of praxis you outline, except to once again say "well, I feel it's important". But what you have said here is just another non-answer. Nathan n.e.widder-AT-lse.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: 12/13/98 6:50 PM Subject: Re: RE: Re: Homeopathic thread is relevant; think again " how you might APPRECIATE, albeit critically, paedophelia, torture, or generally botched BWO's." See : Nambla, De Sade, Laing and Cooper.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005