;-))) I'm more interested for the moment in how your email (indirectly)
fosters pollution.
As Foucault says somewhere at the beginning of Arch of Kn I believe, we
can only take things up in the middle and we must begin somewhere. Is
there any decision to be made with full knowledge which your comment
seems to imply?
Is there someone who might give us a foucauldian analysis of what's
going on/been going on in chile by those people who've actually been
there and know something about what's going on? That would be a very
interesting read.
s
>
kjrufo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Again, not being argumentative, but what characteristics do we attach to the more
> appropriate choices? I am reluctant to accept the god-eat-god nihilism that seems to
> inspire the rejection of social justice as a concepts. Surely trade-offs are
> unavoidable, and ultimately damaging. My e-mail (indirectly) fostors pollution,
> pushing us closer to the final resource crunch. The plight of the homeless affronts
> the cultural aesthetic until the culture discursively removes the homelessness object.
> I buy carrots from the local embodment of a big chain grocer and force out small family
> grocers, suck down pesticides, exploit farmers and transport workers. Etc. and etc.
> These descriptive missives seem to do little in bettering our realities, as
> contradictory and detached as our respective realities might be. Indeed, accepting the
> descriptive as prescriptive hardly seems encouraging. I know this has diverged from
> the original topic of Pinochet via abstraction, but it seems like the larger question
> behind the particulars of application. Thoughts?
>
> Ken Rufo
fosters pollution.
As Foucault says somewhere at the beginning of Arch of Kn I believe, we
can only take things up in the middle and we must begin somewhere. Is
there any decision to be made with full knowledge which your comment
seems to imply?
Is there someone who might give us a foucauldian analysis of what's
going on/been going on in chile by those people who've actually been
there and know something about what's going on? That would be a very
interesting read.
s
>
kjrufo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Again, not being argumentative, but what characteristics do we attach to the more
> appropriate choices? I am reluctant to accept the god-eat-god nihilism that seems to
> inspire the rejection of social justice as a concepts. Surely trade-offs are
> unavoidable, and ultimately damaging. My e-mail (indirectly) fostors pollution,
> pushing us closer to the final resource crunch. The plight of the homeless affronts
> the cultural aesthetic until the culture discursively removes the homelessness object.
> I buy carrots from the local embodment of a big chain grocer and force out small family
> grocers, suck down pesticides, exploit farmers and transport workers. Etc. and etc.
> These descriptive missives seem to do little in bettering our realities, as
> contradictory and detached as our respective realities might be. Indeed, accepting the
> descriptive as prescriptive hardly seems encouraging. I know this has diverged from
> the original topic of Pinochet via abstraction, but it seems like the larger question
> behind the particulars of application. Thoughts?
>
> Ken Rufo