File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0409, message 15


Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:17:36 +1000
From: Paul Jacobson <pj-AT-cutlerco.com.au>
Subject: Re: Re: [postanarchism] strategic essentialism


Currently reading Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, and this 
strikes me as a very similar his discussion of overturning of moral 
law. D posits two ways of overcoming moral law - which seems to be 
equally applicable to the bureaucratic law. First thru what he calls 
irony: ascending towards the the principle of the law with the goal 
of dismissing the law as secondary and without validity because it 
distorts the principle behind the law. The second way is described as 
humor: the strict observance of the law and the descent towards its 
necessary outcome. D uses the idea of 'work to rule' as an example of 
humor. Can't really add too much to that as I'm just dipping my toe 
into the book at this stage...

pj


>      Here, I have two thoughts in quick succession: 1.) what does it 
>mean that Lila Mae can be both a subversive Intuitionist and a 
>bureaucratic enforcer of laws? 2.) I know that you meant for the 
>word "it" to refer to the "analogy" (i.e., to say that maybe your 
>analogy is better because of this duality in Lila Mae), but it also 
>could ambiguously refer to "the existing system"; what if the system 
>of laws and rules can be made "better," _stronger_, by the inclusion 
>of Intuitionists?


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005