From: "Jon Rubin" <j_rubin-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: To destratify or not to destratify Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:50:14 PST hmmm, well given the choice of "hippy elf" or "Baconian positivist" I know which one I'd rather be called. If you're talking about the Cutrofello piece where he calls Foucault a "beautiful soul" then all I can say is that I'd happily repressed my memory of reading it as it was pure shite - but at the time I thought it also bore no resemblance to his book. I'll have to reread it to see if its as bad as you make out. I haven't done this problem any favours by not seeing that there should have been three, not two questions that I'd like Unleesh to answer: 1/ destratifactory means (depassing tropes, yipee) 2/ destratifactory ends (death to the strata) 3/ what the fuck happened. I'd like to stick to my claim that (1) at least still needs experimentation - if it didn't somebody would have written the _Hippy Elves Armchair Destratifaction Book_ and the CIA would have paid for the publishing as for (2) then yes we are back to where we started I don't really care whether (3) gets accurately (however you might decide this should be cashed out) reported by Unleesh BUT D&G make it quite clear that historians (their word) can only see revolutions, which always go wrong and cannot see the revolutionary becomings. Now this might be cos they have no criteria to differentiate revoutionary from non-revoutionary (if I turn in any more circles, I'm going to give up) becomings but it might also be something that history is blind to. "All history does is to translate a coexistence of becomings into a succession." [ATP] 430 - was the quote I was groping for. Jon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005