From: Sean Saraq <sean_saraq-AT-environics.ca> Subject: RE: To Lambda C, a waste of good oxygen Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:31:09 -0500 p.s. oh, I almost forgot. I also promise not to read _2600_ magazine or to get involved in computer hacking ever again. Thanks grandpa! > -----Original Message----- > From: lambdac-AT-globalserve.net [SMTP:lambdac-AT-globalserve.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:10 PM > To: nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Subject: Re: To Lambda C, a waste of good oxygen > > OK, Mr. Lots-of-Hot-Air & Mad-as-the-wet-hen, so we're finally getting > to you and your fond puerile, misinformed, disinforming, commentaries. > > You - who wanted to give shit to the hegelians etc, are eating it big > time: caught on those banal generalizations so dear to academics who > could never succeed were it not for the regime of mediocrity that > favours their selection. Explain now how you can make those > judgements > about Hegel or Heidegger without having read or understood them! And > explain now too how you move from the anecdotal hear-say quote you > provided, where Deleuze is said to protest (how? By signing another > of > those petitions, etc?) the extradition of the RAF's lawyer from France > to Germany, to your insidious, insinuative _conclusion_ that Deleuze > "supported" the lawyer's clients, not just in terms of their release > from jail, but in terms of their ideology, analysis (if they ever had > one!), tactics, strategy, etc, as if Deleuze supported the RAF!! > > You see, we actually did read what you so fatuously wrote- > > >I simply > >pointed out that Deleuze supported Baader Meinhof - and not only once > >they were in prison, but all the way through their career. > > Not only once, you said- _but all the way through their career_ no > less! Now, the quotes from Guattari, if nothing more, might have > provoked in that pompous thick head of yours some vague inkling of the > extreme betise you were, and are again, insisting on serving us. And > even that exemplary whorish quote you provided _from a third party_ at > least still has a speck of hesitation in making such grandiose leaps > of > stupidity- > > >"He [Foucault] had no > >intention of supporting people he considered to be "terrorists". And > >that is precisely what he seemed to reproach Deleuze for doing. > > Foucault _seemed_ to reproach Deleuze for supporting the RAF members > in > prison... Not that he reproached - he _seemed_ to be reproaching > (reference to Foucault please, if you don't mind?). Not to mention > that > supporting the RAF members in prison has a whole other gamut of > connotations - was it support for Holger Meins' refusal to be force > fed?, etc, etc. > > May we suggest you are not being very well served by the shameful > readings you choose to make? Or, in a less kind tone, we could ask > who's paying you for this disinformation? What odd purpose could it > serve- the relaying of such gossipy-tidbits, for clearly neither D nor > G > are well served by it; nor is anybody's understanding either. Your > claim is gratuitous. > > Lambda Carbonmonoxide > (aucuns talents) > > PS1 And what to say of the deemed refusals of Foucault to support > terrorism in the late 70's?, when, in 1972, he said- > > "On the contrary, our action does not seek for the soul or the man > behind the condemned, but to erase the profound border between > innocence > and culpability. It is the question which Genet already proposed > following the death of the judge of Soledad or about that airplane > hijacked by the Palestinians in Jordan. While the newspapers cried > over > the judge and those unfortunate tourists held in the middle of the > desert for no apparent reason; Genet, instead, asked: "Is a judge > innocent, and is innocent an american lady who has enough money to > carry > on with tourism that way?" " > > Can we then conclude that this woman is guilty of existence (or is she > guilty for being a tourist, american and having enough money to carry > on > that way?) and deserved whatever terrorism gave her? Then too, it is > no > longer just a matter of the efficacy of an action (no hope of course > that terror will change anything) - and so is anything in principle a > go? Aren't there too many assumptions here? Or proletarians do not > fly? They don't drive either? They bicycle then... > > PS2 "The elimination of the concept of the practice of terrorism is > thus correlative at once to the negation of out-dated political points > of reference - even if spontaneist - and the affirmation of a radical > materialism. This as well we have learned during the '70's, with > their > awful terrorist interlude." (Guattari & Negri) > > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005