'm'
Ah the confusion of email as a means of communication.
I think you might be reading more into my question than was intended
(assuming that you will let me use such a notion). Why eat the question as
opposed to attempting to answer it? But i am being unkind, because of
course, you do answer it in your creative redescription of "letting" to now
mean "doing". Also, as you point out, what 'things are' is not self evident
and part of what we are is 'to do'. I call this the axiological imperative;
we must act in this world. Also, i wasn't asking whether or not you
subscribed to Cage's politics but the extent _you_ were advocating "letting
things be what they are" as a form of politics.
Equally, in Cage's specific area the letting can only proceed after the
doing. In fact, what Cage is referring to is something akin to Hendrix's
notion of not ironing out to many mistakes from the process. In this sense,
perfection may not be the goal when placed in the context of soul. Still,
what Cage is involved in is a much less structured free form sort of
composition, and it is in this sense more akin to a Californian notion of
"letting it all hang out". I do this on holiday, it's not a pretty sight,
but what the hell. But is it a good posiotion for political discourse,
that's the question?
My apologies, in advance, to those who might think that this is not the sort
of subject we should be debating on a Foucault list. But then again, perhaps
this is precisely what we should be debating on a Foucault list. Remember
transgression.
P.S Don't worry folks I will shortly have to unsubscribe. This is nothing to
so with the list, simply my work load.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
Ah the confusion of email as a means of communication.
I think you might be reading more into my question than was intended
(assuming that you will let me use such a notion). Why eat the question as
opposed to attempting to answer it? But i am being unkind, because of
course, you do answer it in your creative redescription of "letting" to now
mean "doing". Also, as you point out, what 'things are' is not self evident
and part of what we are is 'to do'. I call this the axiological imperative;
we must act in this world. Also, i wasn't asking whether or not you
subscribed to Cage's politics but the extent _you_ were advocating "letting
things be what they are" as a form of politics.
Equally, in Cage's specific area the letting can only proceed after the
doing. In fact, what Cage is referring to is something akin to Hendrix's
notion of not ironing out to many mistakes from the process. In this sense,
perfection may not be the goal when placed in the context of soul. Still,
what Cage is involved in is a much less structured free form sort of
composition, and it is in this sense more akin to a Californian notion of
"letting it all hang out". I do this on holiday, it's not a pretty sight,
but what the hell. But is it a good posiotion for political discourse,
that's the question?
My apologies, in advance, to those who might think that this is not the sort
of subject we should be debating on a Foucault list. But then again, perhaps
this is precisely what we should be debating on a Foucault list. Remember
transgression.
P.S Don't worry folks I will shortly have to unsubscribe. This is nothing to
so with the list, simply my work load.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------