Re: 'Actual past'

On Thu, 2 May 1996, Quetzil Castaneda wrote:

>
> actually the reality of the bomb
> that destroyed that city was its bomb-iness, if you will.

Chr*st on a b*ke. Well it's lucky you weren't on the atomic programme
isn't it? 'How do you see the problem of constructing Fat Man, Professor
Castaneda?'
'Simple Sir. We just make it bomby.'

Brilliant! No doubt what makes nerve gas so f***ing deadly is
its f***ing nervegassiness! And we can protect ourselves from it by
wearing a suit imbued with NBC-protection-iness!

On second thoughts, no. I'm poking fun at a deeply serious argument.
The bomb worked because it was deeply implicated in the discourse of
scientific 'truth', consisting of regularities, rules, norms and
performances, and can be used as an example of the absolute primacy of
power/knowledge over the constructed nature of 'reality'. Or something.

Dave Hugh-Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dash2@xxxxxxxxx





Folow-ups
  • Re: 'Actual past'
    • From: Jim Underwood
  • Replies
    Re: 'Actual past', Quetzil Castaneda
    Partial thread listing: