Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:37:19 +0800
From: Paul Bains <P.Bains-AT-murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Re: What is this shit


No, i don't miss your 'point'. A couple of days ago you gently told Unleash
to not use the word 'motherfucker'. When he suggested therapy you went
spatial and called him an idiot (con), adding that you could no longer deal
with such people. (I think you had surmised that 'con' was the french
equivalent of mf. - actually more like 'encule' with acute accent on final e).

I to sometimes laugh aloud at Michel's wit/irony/sarcasm but often it
degenerates into a Q/A scene which does little credit to anyone, least of
all michell.

What is a conversation for (remember?) If some of the contributors are so
smart, why do they so quickly take pot shots at whoever appears not to have
thought things through, or appears to be making 'silly' mistakes. Hardly
conducive to encouraging people who are uncertain of their ideas to even
begin to discuss them.


Greg Seigwort wrote a post recently that was described by Michel as a
'lengthy ramble'. This is not conducive to people sharing their thoughts in
an ecology of ideas (pace Guattari, Bateson). Why bother with such comments
which are essentially disparaging. 
Here i imagine retorts claiming that 'lengthy ramble' is descriptive, not
critical....blah blah. Or if that's what one thinks one should write it..etc.


Now the chances are that these comments which are a response to you, sir
orpheus, will be torn to shreds by a bunch of gifted subscribers.

Remember it is you sir that started this thing about what bks people had
read...(not to be taken literally!) Why not use your poetic skills
affirmatively?

'but i know the defendants better 'n you
and while your're busy prosecutin'
we're busy whistlin'
cleaning' up the courtroom.............(Dylan, quoted in Dialogues, 8).

'Finding, encountering, stealing instead of regulating, recognizing and
judging.' (dialogues p.8)

And if you think i'm rather 'quiet' take a look at the archives and see the
topics i have raised and contributed to...

"Not a correct image, just an image."

Paul,
waiting for the resentment.

I'm out of here.


At 04:17 PM 1/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>	You sir miss the point, indeed the several points being made in
>this wee polemic. For one thing if you read these posts literally then you
>err.  lIke our frustrated American friend. If indeed you wish to camp out
>in that
>particular cluster of wasted breath then be my guest. As for Mister Rooney
>I happen to like his posts. As far as I am concerned this list had become
>dead and boring and was of little use. I had been off this list because I
>had gotten really tired and bored of listening/reading to the discussions
>generated by -  the little group of you sratch my back talk and I am a
shaman scene and
>wow isn't this alternative and look how intelligently I am reading Deleuze
>and Guattari.Then after while I returned when noticing that Rooney
>was having
>a couple of you on, having at you, and I noticed that a couple of you were
>upset and mad at him. Then I began to read his posts and realized, My god
>there is some intelligence here, some real philosophical inquiry and I
>noticed that Unleash  and several others were getting heated up about
>this. Well I have always thought "Unleash" was  fake and a phony.
>Something in his tone, and smug attitudes something Really sickening and
>false. But I thought I won' t say anything. Anyhow Paul Bains I left the
>list and came back when I noticed this new energy on this rather dying
>list. 
>	So there you have it. I happen to think that polemic is a
>legitimate tool in this sort of debate. 
>
>	And of course I think it is important to have read and to be able
>to define one's terms, or at least employ them in some way that invites
>interest, intelligence and debate. Which is what I did not see happenign.
>Now that Widder and Rooney however have shown their skills the list seems
>more lively. And you sir, for the most part you are silent. So if that is
>the case, then why complain.  You are entitled to that position. I am
>entitled to take on and question this Unleash character in ways that I see
>fit. 
>	So I want to thank Roony and Widder who have brought back to this
>list, which as far as I am concerned was dying, who brought back to the
>list some energy and debate and some real learning....
>
>Trust me I was also once responsible for the sort of pompous generalities
>that other members indulge in. I was guilty of that but no longer do  it
>However what I do do is to engage at the level of learning from every move
>I make, especially here on this list.
>
>	I ask this: What is the purpose of the Deleuze and Guattari list?
>
>	How do member see it?
>
>	Does it need to change?
>
>	Is it  at this very moment involved in change?
>
>	Unleash who tends to assume that many on the list are dead beat
>academics might be right. I am not . I am indeed a student in debt up to
>my ears. So. It goes. But if indeed Unleash is right, in what way is he
>right? How does that connect with the purpose and assumed needs of this
>list? Of course this would be to bring the level of question to the very
>function of the list. Which is fine by me. SO let's go for it. 
>
>	Practice what you preach. Praxis as it works.
>
>	Of course I really don't give a hoot if Unleash or you or anyone
>has read Sartre and how he uses[d] in a very specific French the term
>depasse in
>his thought. I want though to understand what Anyone  means when using
>a term, how it applies, and what it connects to in thought, action and
>speculation, artistic creation, fiction, poetry, cinema, etc. etc. And
>also by the way how it connects to the work of our authors, how it can be
>useful and inventive.
>
>	I think that Beth Rooney Widder and Lewis are going at some
>interesting work, I think that Widder is way over my head when it comes to
>Hegel and what interests me is how that crosses over with our authors'
>work.
>	A few months back there was some commentary made on the Canadian
>Journal and the contribution of B.L. Ettinger and her use of the term
>transference. I took someone up on that debate and then it got interesting
>and then the debate ended. As usual on this list. Things get interesting
>and then for one reason or another it slips away. 
>	The real question is how can this machine become a real tool of
>learning. Well I don't think it can be. Not the way it works. If I happen
>to be someone who also fails to make it happen, I would be happy to change
>my tactics. However that is not going to happen over night. There has
>always (on this list) been a conflict between those who seem to know their
>Deleuze and Guattari from a philo-angle and those who come at differently.
>Neither way of course is better. But some ways are more interesting. If
>resentiment is the enemy then perhaps it is the unlearned who are
>resentful in this case. That seems pretty obvious to me. So what is the
>purpose of the list Paul? 
>
>	So Unleash at least these days functions as a lightening rod, and
>as far as I am concerned that is quite a priveliged place to be. he
>commands an amazin amout of attention. Which is quite a feat given the
>nature of this particular beast. I would not complain if I was him. So
>your points seem to fail to rise to the occassion.  
>
>
>> I thought one of things d/g were critical of was this 'have your read'
business
>> .
>
>
>