Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:23:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu>
Subject: God help us, back to tropes




On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 Unleesh-AT-aol.com wrote:

> 
> <<  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.

Yawn.  You brought up this example before.  As
I noted then, it's yet another misuse of "trope".
If you still don't get it, go back and read my
original posts, or open a book.  I've no interest 
in reflogging this moribund equine.


> I don't know why you took such issue with that statement, Rooney!

Evidently, nothing I wrote made an impression
last November.  As I said then, it passes off
a banal and useless truism as insight by dressing
it up in empty, needless, ugly jargon. 

And I believe you when you say that your intent
was guileless.  That only magnifies the problem.


> But then again, your selection of my poetry is quite limited ... 
> many other examples exist ... 

Don't tempt me to cite them.


> ...logic may have its domain, but you continually again and again 
> [...] are applying a particular way of thinking and reasoning onto my
> discussions, a series of "tropes" if you will ... 

I'm asking questions to get to the point:

	If we should "depass tropes", which ones
	are "ultimately repressive" and how do we
	tell the difference?

	Does homeopathy work?

	What needs to be destratified and what
 	doesn't and how do we tell the difference?

	Why should we believe someone isn't using
	"filters" when they give clear evidence to
	the contrary?

	Why describe non-traditional unions as
	marriages?

That "particular way of thinking and reasoning" is
what the rest of us call "thinking and reasoning",
that is, asking obvious, pragmatic questions and
seeing if the machine works.


> and I would 
> suggest, with Adorno, that these tropes fit into socioepistemological
> configurations that are ultimately repressive...

I somehow doubt that Adorno would be any more gentle
with your speculations than I am.


> ...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!

Straw men.  It is your condemnation of reason and
truth which flings wide the gates of thought to
all manner of superstitious fundamentalism, brazen
authoritarianism, and consumerist relativism.


> Why don't you end the cartooning and counteridentity tactics and engage in
> some dialogue?

What do you think we've been doing?  Again, you
suffer from the misperception (common among the
self-important) that genuine dialogue entails 
agreement with you.


> I'm not saying you have to "agree" with me, Rooney,

Your posts speak louder than these words.


> I'm
> simply suggesting that antagonism and ridicule are not the only ways to
> dialogue! 

True enough.  But to each according to his needs.


> 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?

The love of wisdom.


Cordially,

M.