Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 05:49:34 +1000
From: deX <dionne-AT-ThePla.Net>
Subject: Re: battlestations! up shields! ready photon torpedoes!


ok kenbubble you state that you are: >glad to have set off [my] engines.

why? because you like the smell of the fumes? i have sat through this thread
long enough and said nothing in response to some of your eXtremely
provocative convictions:


> I personally don't like [poetry] and I'll attack 
> it as inaccessible, bourgeois, and vulnerable to ideological 
> appropriation.

a few years ago the graduating students at a local art school thought it
would be a cool joke and really get up the professors' noses in regard to
their schools high profile for giving all students 'a solid theoretical base
from which to practise their art' (which most of them found inaccessible),
if they 'launched' a range of social theory caps. they all pitched in and
distributed the very high quality derrida, kristeva, habermas, foucault,
marx, deleuze caps to smartypantz bookstores. they had a hundred or so
manufactured and they sold out on their first day. this bothered the
students, as it undermined their comment, so they had more made and upped
the price from AUS$35 per cap to AUS$50 per cap. again they kept selling.
still bothered they started circulating rumours that they only wanted the
money to have a graduation party. this had no effect on sales so they
changed the rumour to graduation rave with exstacy. no change. they gave in
realising that the commodification and merchandising of theory was not a
market to be mocked, and confessed that the small profits would be used for
their studio work. sales stopped.

> Poetry cannot replace social theory.  Poetry is a 
> vehicle of critique, an invaluable tool, but it is only a tool in 
> this regard.

gilligan pointed out the answer to the million dollar question here 'ah duh!
theory is a tool as well!' but you just skipped off whistling 'don't point
out the grand canyons in my argument'a.k.a.: >You tell me.  

in an embarrassingly improvised tango side step you queried: >Why have you
still chosen to communicate most of your message in prose?

which of course betrays the self-aggrandizing conceit that we here on the
list with fist can only produce theory, every post another digital
publication. no matter how hard nikos tries, according to ken's conceit it's
real theory in the end. where has all the method gone from M&T? there is a
very big self-referential meta-list thingy swirling around in that question
hey what?

then once again you stumble:

>I don't want to blur the boundaries between fact and fiction.

how can you so blindly assume theory is fact? especially in the context of
this particular list? trace(s) and her ilk are a dime a dozen out there in
fact-land peddling terrifying 'truths' that constitute theory that curdles
our blood. there are a vast number of fictive theories kenbubble, and you
know it! go to business school for a week and see what you learn in
modelling for marketing psychology or international financial management,
these are guaranteed scary experiences. nevertheless the kids buy the books,
go to the lectures, learn the theory and then pop off into $60K+ jobs and
put it into practise. what about all the theory that legitimates
quantitative analysis? for god's sake, television ratings share the same
base theory and they are total bullshit! you can't just say everything
theoretical is fact, everything poetic is fiction. it's totally absurd. 

>I am willing to entertain any idea - but I will not 
>tolerate suffering in any form.  This idea is open to the notion 
>of trying to determine what suffering is and isn't.  In the mean 
>time, before the issue is settled, I am going to try to make 
>sure no one is killed.

this goody two shoes routine does very little else than make people with
severly impaired vision think that you have responded to any of my questions.

your narcy sarcasm comes across as nothing but a poorly improvised and
hurried attempt to take a swipe at anything that approaches your tatty
little nest of cherished assumptions in this thread.

>Change we to me.  My apologies for assuming that other 
>human beings might be concerned about survival.

you offer a brief distinction b/w philosophy & theory:
 
>Philosophy is the love of wisdom.  Theory is an emphatic 
>postulation that goes after "the whole."  It is an idealist form of 
>writing.  

but this is an idealist view of theory. there is much wisdom that is not
only less than ideal but unwritten. i am sure you will read this definition
again one day and giggle as i do now. you are establishing the ground for
the windys and trace(s) of this world to stake a claim as the true founders
of a better world for all, three cheers and here comes last night's dinner -
bleuaghhh! 

do you not see any abuse perpetrated in the name of theory?

>The immunization of abuse that I was talking about 
>refers only to forseeable circumstances. 

oh and how do we forsee these circumstances? what are they? how pavlovian is
your average terrorist? as for the claim that a commandment constitutes
immunization, i completely fail to see how.

what are you promoting and celebrating here apart from yourself:

>I hope my message, "Sign the petition against 
>George Bush receiving an honourary degree from the U of 
>Toronto" does change the world.  I tried to immunize it by 
>leaving some space for people to leave a message.  It is the 
>best I can do with my current telephone company.


to a key concern of mine : how does any of this apply to oratory cultures?

you nonanswer me with: >It applies only in part.

i understand. and then i wake up and my hair is messy again. this seems to
happen every morning that i wake up. i wish waking up didn't mess my hair so.

don't forget to breathe.

deX.