Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 01:06:39 +1000
From: matd <matd-AT-winshop.com.au>
Subject: Re: Cyberfeminism with a difference


Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
> 
> > How deep can you go ?
> >
> > Love m.
> 
> This brief post has caused me quite a bit of grief.  It has been just
> over a week now since i posted my questions about Braidotti's essay
> and aside from the remarks by judith only a few of the issues i have
> raised have been addressed.  perhaps i am too impatient or too
> addicted to email conversations....  however i think that their is
> another dynamic at work here.  my comments were rooted in an
> analytical mindset - oriented toward fairly "traditional" categories of
> inquiry.  I'll cut to the chase and ask one more question:
> 
> Are there concepts, words, signs, signifiers, signified's that are
> irreduciable?  Derrida argues that deconstruction is one - and he
> intimates that the idea of converation, justice, happiness, and death
> are others.  I would argue that subjectivity is another - along with
> many of the key tenets of the enlightenment - freedom, domination,
> suffering, hope etc.  I am not saying that these notions have been
> fulfilled in any sort of teleology - and i would resist positing them in a
> teleological manner.  these ideas can only be explored within a
> conversation - the validity, teleology, metaphysics of these notions
> cannot be dismissed or assumed a priori.  how could they be?  it is
> up to concrete human beings to examine them - critique them - within
> discourse.  for now, and this could change, i think democracy,
> happiness, freedom provide important and worthwhile guideposts for
> our dialogue.  they mark out, in a theoretical way, the possibility of
> dialogue.  for now - they are essential, as speculations.  this could
> change.  i wonder if the either or of metaphysics or pragmatism
> (functional concepts) missed the point.  can we discuss things in a
> tentative way - characterized by openness - much like gadamer has
> noted.  this is not to say that openness is a metaphysical precept
> that excludes people - it is a relentless characteristic of trying NOT to
> exclude people - heightened by the awareness, as habermas has
> noted, of the destrurctive forces of pain, labour, and power (which
> also serve as helpful guideposts, for the time being).  the focus upon
> dialogue - the persistance of dialogue - is a point on which theorists
> such as derrida, gadamer, habermas, benhabib, kristeva, and
> braidotti all "agree" (at least, i hope, none of them would say
> dialogue should stop).  is communication then also irreducable.  and
> if so - what does this mean?  (sorry, two questions).  relentless
> negativity may "take difference seriously" but negativity is
> parasitical on positive assertions - assertions which tend to be
> dismissed as violent.  but these assertions need to be included and
> explored.
> 
> ken "jumping the gun" mackendrick
> 
>      --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
You fucken cunts fuck off I don't want to be in your stupid fucken' club
so have a family gangbang away from me.


     --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---