From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:04:25 EST
Subject: Re: Still pontificating after all these years


In a message dated 1/23/99 8:48:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu writes:

<<  I'm suggesting depassing tropes which fit into socioepistemological
 }}} configurations which are ultimately repressive.
  >>

Ok, since you're in love with this one, let's give an example of this:

        Ecologist Versus Logger

this trope, this "either-or", this binary serves logging companies by
maintaining their position, pitting two forces against each other. By
"depassing" this trope, by leaving it behind as irrelevant, we can begin to
see that it is not a necessary opposition. Earth First! and the IWW have
joined forces in this regard and are doing labor organizing amongst loggers
that helps them see their common interests with ecologists. This would be an
example of what I am discussing.

Many oppositions, many ways of thinking about the world fit into dominant
discourses, and later become obsolete. I'm suggesting augmenting and speeding
up that process.

I don't know why you took such issue with that statement, Rooney! Obviously it
stuck in your craw. I had just been reading Sartre and Laing and detached some
of their code (the notion of "depassing", which I found to be quite
interesting and useful) and applied it here. My intentions were sincere, I was
not speaking in such a way as to purposefully mystify, and I was genuinely
sharing my ideas. What's the problem?

But then again, your selection of my poetry is quite limited ... many other
examples exist ... for some reason, you've identified me in a particular
manner, reacted to that misconstrual, and then set yourself up practically as
a counteridentity ...

...logic may have its domain, but you continually again and again seem totally
unwilling to consider rhizomatic thinking, you don't seem to have any
understanding of the notion of collaged thinking through detaching of code
which D&G discuss in relation to the schizophrenic, and are applying a
particular way of thinking and reasoning onto my discussions, a series of
"tropes" if you will ... and I would suggest, with Adorno, that these tropes
fit into socioepistemological configurations that are ultimately repressive
...

...like, only those who reason like us are worthy of [notice, rights, life]

this has been applied in this century to other humans, as well as the torture,
enslavement, mass murder of other forms of life. If those aren't "ultimately
repressive", I don't know what is!

Why don't you end the cartooning and counteridentity tactics and engage in
some dialogue? I am aware that for you the words "dialogue", "sharing",
"empathy", "mutuality" have some sort of contemptuous associations, tho for
the life of me I can't figure out why ...  If you aren't willing to engage in
any of these, or anything resembling them (use your own words if these are
repugnant), perhaps you could at least explain the genealogy of your contempt
for such concepts ... I'm not saying you have to "agree" with me, Rooney, I'm
simply suggesting that antagonism and ridicule are not the only ways to
dialogue! And if I have a different style than you, why don't we learn from
each other and ask questions rather than assuming roles. You would like for me
to assume the role of buffoon. You play the role of debunker, of point the
finger at the fool, etc. Let's go deeper : what's your desiring-satisfaction
in this scene? What fetish is going on here?