From: f1221-AT-cc.nagasaki-u.ac.jp
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:06:36 +0900
Subject: Re:  God help us, back to tropes


At 2:50 AM 99.1.24, Unleesh-AT-aol.com wrote:
> [...]

> 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.

Somehow, this reminds me of how some Hayekian free market enthusiasts
quench those pesky questions about the costs of a free market to society:
Who is the >society< you are referring to... whose costs do you mean...etc.

It does not matter, who the >we< is, as any individual or any group must decide
which >tropes< are >ultimately repressive< and to be >depassed< and which are
not [at least if repressive tropes are to be depassed at all]. And to do
so, they
must have criteria to guide this decision, no ?

It is entirely a different matter that the criteria for this decision may vary
between groups or individuals and may not even be constant over time.

[...]
>
> 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...

Ok, let`s put the question differently: WHY should one not go back to mommy,
daddy, priest ? Because it is conservative ? And if so, what is wrong with
that ?


> Re : "filters", [...]
> 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!!!!

But saying schizophrenics >lose filters< is a haphazard description of a
process which we dont`t yet fully understand. It is somewhat of a
metaphor. Not even psychiatric literature comes directly from Mount Sinai,
at least not always.

> 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.

Um, sorry to ask, but why did she experience differently, if she did not
use filters ?

sincerely
-Yamazaki