From: "joan carol urquhart" <jcu-AT-execulink.com>
Subject: Re: war as sacrifice
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:53:49 -0400


interesting andy

if  what you suggest means that 
the gift is the sensibility of it, 
more than just the stuff of its gesture,
whereas the notion of (getting rid of) junk 
implies a need to be fulfilled
(giving to get rid of something is not the same thing 
as unconditionally giving something away)

and this is like trying to unzip the lining of a westernized mind,
like closing time in a bar 
when you suddenly hear the sound of clinking glasses,
finally hears individual voices again, that seem unusually lucid
and one becomes acutely attuned to small gestures, 
when cupping a flame to the tip of someone's cigarette 
means more than just a smoke,
intoxicated by that grey time outside space
and expecting nothing 
 
war is nothing if not personal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andrew robinson" <ldxar1-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: war as sacrifice


> It seems to me that play might be the way beyond
> reciprocity because it involves the possibility of
> practice that does not incur debt, either because play
> together is a gain for all, or because the
> winner/loser is the end of the game - a pride of
> winning for instance - and is written off at the start
> of the next game (even in rule-bound kinds of game,
> which are in many respects the worst model).  So an
> economy of gift which is also an economy of play could
> involve a gift which does not incur either eternal or
> temporary debt.
> 
> Another possibility is where codependence or
> articulation of desires occurs across
> incommensurability, in which case the meanings of acts
> for the agents cannot be understood by one another, in
> which case, the homogeneity of meaning necessary for
> reciprocity or debt could not exist (because one does
> not know what the other's gift means to the other and
> whether it is only a gift from the view of the self). 
> A good example might be when one person's junk is
> taken by another - because as junk, it cannot be a
> gift, it is useless and so not a loss to the "giver". 
> (This is pretty much how the Freecycle online
> community works - people give away unwanted, often
> junk items to others who can make use of them).
> 
> A possible extension would be, that outside a market
> economy where something which has use to others
> automatically has exchange-value which can be
> converted back into something wanted by the self,
> every surplus - every excess generated in production
> or play of whatever kind - would be "junk" to the
> participants (i.e. strictly useless), and thus would
> be a gift which does not imply reciprocity.
> 
> Andy
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com