From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:50:53 EST
Subject: Re:  God help us, back to tropes


Mass murder is straw men???!!! Hardly! It's relevant! It's an example of
"ultimately repressive" conditions!!!! I have not invoked fundamentalism, I
have not invoked authoritarianism, I have not invoked consumerism!!!

Now, let's address some of your questions :

"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?"

My first question is : who is the "we" you refer to when you ask how "we" are
to know the difference or "we" are to believe? The "we" on this list? Who? I
would direct the questions by indicating that the answers to these may be
different depending on the groups answering them. So, while that is not an
answer to the question, it does modify the way we question, because we have to
think the multiple, rather than assuming one audience.
 
I've already identified one trope that fits into a repressive regime :
"ecologists versus loggers". I'm sure if we really wanted to discuss it, we
could discuss other ones as well. Such as male versus female (maybe we could
begin with Lacan's restroom example), or black or white, or whatever ...

Does homeopathy work? For whom? Under what conditions? I will say that under
certain conditions, yes, it definitely works ; I've experienced it myself and
seen it work for others. This doesn't necessarily mean it's applicable in all
cases. Are you asking for people's experiences with homeopathy? We could
discuss that as well. I have a feeling, however, that our discussion might be
hampered by methodological antagonisms.

By asking "what needs to be destratified" it would seem as if we are placing
ourselves in some objective, god-like place of deciding outside of history,
outside of our placement ... Regarding destratification, I have already given
you some good guidelines ... Write out an intention for your experiment, find
support networks, give delimited time for the experiment, evaluate the
experiment ... one can also take babysteps, so one doesn't go crying back to
mommy, daddy, priest...

Re : "filters", perhaps a less-than-literal entering-into the sense of the
other's position would be more helpful than simply deciding that A) "Filters"
means this, B)They aren't exhibiting my definition of "filters", therefore
C)They are contradicting themselves. What, do you get "points" for proving the
contradiction? This woman wouldn't give you the time of day! There was sense
in her statement, she was taking it all in, she was letting it self-sift, etc.
She had developed within her social group a particular or "local" definition
of "filtering". Instead of assuming you know, it would be more worthwhile to
investigate that knowledge of "filtering". But it is a fact that there is
psychiatric literature on file that talks about filtering in a similar way,
talks about the schizophrenic as losing filters, having less filtering
capacity ... and a schizo can often still talk!!!! so the question is not
entirely nonsensical. I'm not sure what you're afraid of. The "machine"
certainly worked! The encounter was a success! We both occupied a certain
space for a period of time that was altered, in which we mutually experienced
differently.

As far as describing nontraditional unions as marriages, it's a strategy : it
decenters certain notions of what marriage is, decenters the privilege ... I
am aware that there are other strategies available as well ; we could discuss
those,too.

So you see, I am not unwilling to address your questions. I am not unwilling
to share my experience. I am not unwilling to share my thoughts. These could
become interesting discussions so long as we are not so busy trying to
antagonize or disprove the others ....

... one might describe this list in the past several months as little more
than an "antagonism machine", which is very sad, as that can be found in
almost every speech and debate club anywhere ; it's nothing new.

If your way of pursuing wisdom is playing out sorry, old roles, that's pretty
damn pathetic.