Al,
maybe something along those lines can be found at this collections of
images, texts, and audio filesaudi
http:www.peak057.com/yourselfdown/
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 alanturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:59:36 GMT
> From: alanturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>, foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Specificity and Inner Fascism
>
> Firstly, hello, i have read from the Foucault list, and
> the ones with stuff about Guattari, and Neitzsche and
> Deleuze, from time to time, but never participated, in
> writing.
>
> So, hello. I hope that this maiden posting will be
> accepted as lengthy because it's 'beginners' length'...
> Mhmm yes, well,
>
> I really am interested in answers to the piece of fun
> posted by Doug Stokes.
>
> Isn't this all a piece of fun, your message, Doug?
>
> Sorry, okay... firstly,
> May I claim that I am also unfamiliar with either piece
> of thread mentioned by Mr Stokes.
>
> That said, may I know lauch a polemic of my own? In the
> form of some questions. (Can a series of questions be
> considered a polemic? - please, by anyone?)
>
> These questions, for Doug, if you would supply answers,
> or answers, from anyone?
>
> Q.1/ Who the hell did it?
>
> What, no. No, I'll have non of that. No more excuses.
> Now! I want to know who is responsible.
> ...
> Yes, right now! No. I said Now! OK. Who is going to own
> up to being responsible?
> ...
> Yes. Right, yes...for failing to ground themselves or
> their writings within a coherent 'politico-ethical
> framework'?
> ...
> Come on. I know there's a few out there. No
> skivving...yes, you, the poststructuralists, I see you.
> Yes. Over in the smoking section. Yes you. Disgusting,
> the lot of you.
> ...
> Lucky we're here today in Tokyo, you'd not be allowed
> to drape yourselves in those (smoky) clouds up the back
> there.
> ...
> No, like you are now. No you wouldn't be doing that
> where i come from... No. No thought for others.
> Smokers! Damn postctructuralists!
> ...
> Sorry. What?! A modernist? No. You're lying... No, you
> are not. No, well she's definitely not a...
> ...
> No. She's not, I can see well enough, yes even from
> here... it's a stage, I'm on, yes it's higher than...
> oh, look. It's not the point. As I was saying...
> ...
> No, an obvious crypto-feminist... oh, really, I'm
> sorry, okay then, a marxist. Better?
> ...
>
> Yes, well, that was not all that I'd expected to
> hear... Let's see if Q.2 is easier...
>
> So. Q.2/
> Where comes from, the assumption that
> poststructuralists choose to navel-gaze? Who are this
> obvious, guilty mob of nihlists anyway, these
> poststructuralists?
>
> Line them up now, all who choose to watch from
> armchairs, the global juggernaut of capitalism as it
> goes gliding by their windows, again?
>
> ANSWER:
> Why don't you try putting up a 'stop' sign then, Doug.
> Or articulating a note and pass it on, next time the
> captain sails the juggernaut of capitalism along.
>
> Then we can stop the jutggernaut at the sign, and tell
> the captain to stop universalising oppression... Yes,
> maybe the Cap'n's just not aware yet...
>
> Go On... No you tell him:
> Okay...
> No more universalising now Captain Smears. Yes, the ol'
> jugger' is a big old vessel Cap'n, but you'll have to
> pull her in i'm afraid...
> ...
> Well, no, it's... well, while you were away Cap'n, you
> and the crew, yes, her, and the ship, well, there was a
> vote you see.
> ...
> No, yes, it was in all the papers. Oh, yes, yeah, the
> one's you told me not to send you. Oh, sorry, I forgot,
> yes, and it was also in all the news you asked the
> entire crew not to talk about after the last 'bad
> news'... yes, invariably Cap'n. Yes, bad. No, of course
> you're right...
> ...
> Yes, i'm sorry, I know, yes, depressing. But that's why
> you told us not to tell you, but...
> ...
> Continue, oh, sorry, well, Cap'n, yes there was a vote.
> ...
> Yes, a vote. Oh no sorry cap'n a 'popular vote'. No,
> not just us, no, well, yes, your mum did vote too.
> Yes... How many? Well, how can I put it...
> ...
> No, more. Okay, well, the whole world.
> ...
> No. I mean voted. No I mean the whole world.
> ...
> I'm not making faces. No I'm gesturing to indicate
> magnitude. Yes, a lot... No, I'm not being abtruse
> again.
> ...
> I'm sorry I'm not being nasty...No. OK.
> ...
> Yes, that's right. Yes, every human being in the world
> voted. And yes. No, Ohh, I don't know how... It's not
> the point.
> ...
> No, Yes...They decided that the Juggernaut had to stop.
> No, the... No, of Capitalism. Yes, that's right. This
> Old Juggy here.
> ...
> I'm sorry Cap, but everyone agreed. Too many
> inefficiencies, inequities, yes, but the repairers
> always replicate... No, it's not progress. No it's more
> like 'more of the same, but with even more'...
> ...
> Yeah, like excess. Yes, as you suggest Cap'n [waxing
> wise in the politico-economical]...yes, Cap'n, you are
> very astute.
> ...
> Yes, only 'economic progress' is valued across the
> board as a measure of success. Or, I mean 'progress'...
> Isn't that the definition? Of 'progress'... an increase
> in economic success.
> ... Blah, blah, script keeps going, so?...
>
> So, history has seen as 'progress', somehow, doing the
> same sorts of things differently... or in different
> levels, in different ways, using different modes, of
> expression, consumption, blah blah... isn't this
> 'progress':
> doing the same things more excessively, rather than
> really wondering, first, what progress means at all.
>
> ???QQQ
>
> How do we progress?
>
> Firstly, how do we measure 'value'?
>
> What is the source of your certainty, Doug, that
> 'global oppression', even exists?
> Do you mean that I feel a bit oppressed this morning
> because I had to get up early. For Work!!! Damn work.
> Damn getting up early, damn losing my wife, my kids.
> ...That 50 bucks... damn, 50... means I'll have to work
> again tomorrow... get that 50 bucks back... after all,
> i'll have nothing to blow on the horses, and getting
> drunk this weekend. if i don't make back the money i
> lost this morning...
>
> damn capitalism... i'm chained to the yoke of the
> juggernaut of opression. Capitalism.
>
> Really, Doug, what are you talking about? Or are you
> having us on back there, in your last mail?
>
> >>>???
> Please tell me how, in your own life, you reach
> decisions about what is good and what is bad?
>
> <<<???
> What is on the 'nice' side of the line that divides off
> what is 'oppressive' about the world?
>
> And, again, how do you decide?
> ?? ??
> ???<><>???
> ? ? ?
> ? W ?
> <<>>
> ><
> >>>>>>>> ??????? .
> Please tell me if you have some answers. Because I'd
> like to know how anyone can be said to be 'shirking
> responsibility' for anything, just because they fail to
> articulate or provide coherent theoretical bases for
> their lives.
>
> Please bear this in mind, Doug. That failing to say
> exactly 'why' (in what way it can be said, in so many
> words) the way people live their lives now is 'bad', or
> 'wrong', or 'encouraging', or 'unproductive', 'too
> academic', too hard-headedly 'materialistic', etc..
> Failing to say things and failing to do are very
> importantly different things.
>
> It need not be pointed out, I'm sure, I hope...
> that many 'theorists' who are currently failing their
> responsibilities, right now, as we speak.
> ...Yes, skivving, shirking their calls to arms, are,
> despite this... specific, (thoughtful, if not
> intellectual) members of their own communities.
>
> We should do what we feel we should do to live as we
> feel we should be living... But, if this sounds like
> 'commonsense', right, or 'wrong', as a description of
> 'how to live life', Doug, what does it mean... why,
> anyway, is this monster of capitalism the central
> organising feature of your current perception of 'the
> wrong about the world'?
>
> and if capitalism structurates your world, should it be
> the pivotal focus of the lives of others.. all
> others... then, who? how? why?
>
> ----------- ================ --------------
> I would really appreciate any responses to anything
> that was able to be read, and/or found coherent, or
> not, by anyone. Yes... Take Care, and, of course, extra
> points for certain answers... Yes, certain ones, of
> which you are absolutely certain.
>
> regards,
> al
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> This email has been sent from Australia's Education
> Internet gateway: http://www.australia.edu
> Sign-up for your free email today
> ------------------- ------- ---------------------------------
>
maybe something along those lines can be found at this collections of
images, texts, and audio filesaudi
http:www.peak057.com/yourselfdown/
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 alanturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:59:36 GMT
> From: alanturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Doug Stokes <dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx>, foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Specificity and Inner Fascism
>
> Firstly, hello, i have read from the Foucault list, and
> the ones with stuff about Guattari, and Neitzsche and
> Deleuze, from time to time, but never participated, in
> writing.
>
> So, hello. I hope that this maiden posting will be
> accepted as lengthy because it's 'beginners' length'...
> Mhmm yes, well,
>
> I really am interested in answers to the piece of fun
> posted by Doug Stokes.
>
> Isn't this all a piece of fun, your message, Doug?
>
> Sorry, okay... firstly,
> May I claim that I am also unfamiliar with either piece
> of thread mentioned by Mr Stokes.
>
> That said, may I know lauch a polemic of my own? In the
> form of some questions. (Can a series of questions be
> considered a polemic? - please, by anyone?)
>
> These questions, for Doug, if you would supply answers,
> or answers, from anyone?
>
> Q.1/ Who the hell did it?
>
> What, no. No, I'll have non of that. No more excuses.
> Now! I want to know who is responsible.
> ...
> Yes, right now! No. I said Now! OK. Who is going to own
> up to being responsible?
> ...
> Yes. Right, yes...for failing to ground themselves or
> their writings within a coherent 'politico-ethical
> framework'?
> ...
> Come on. I know there's a few out there. No
> skivving...yes, you, the poststructuralists, I see you.
> Yes. Over in the smoking section. Yes you. Disgusting,
> the lot of you.
> ...
> Lucky we're here today in Tokyo, you'd not be allowed
> to drape yourselves in those (smoky) clouds up the back
> there.
> ...
> No, like you are now. No you wouldn't be doing that
> where i come from... No. No thought for others.
> Smokers! Damn postctructuralists!
> ...
> Sorry. What?! A modernist? No. You're lying... No, you
> are not. No, well she's definitely not a...
> ...
> No. She's not, I can see well enough, yes even from
> here... it's a stage, I'm on, yes it's higher than...
> oh, look. It's not the point. As I was saying...
> ...
> No, an obvious crypto-feminist... oh, really, I'm
> sorry, okay then, a marxist. Better?
> ...
>
> Yes, well, that was not all that I'd expected to
> hear... Let's see if Q.2 is easier...
>
> So. Q.2/
> Where comes from, the assumption that
> poststructuralists choose to navel-gaze? Who are this
> obvious, guilty mob of nihlists anyway, these
> poststructuralists?
>
> Line them up now, all who choose to watch from
> armchairs, the global juggernaut of capitalism as it
> goes gliding by their windows, again?
>
> ANSWER:
> Why don't you try putting up a 'stop' sign then, Doug.
> Or articulating a note and pass it on, next time the
> captain sails the juggernaut of capitalism along.
>
> Then we can stop the jutggernaut at the sign, and tell
> the captain to stop universalising oppression... Yes,
> maybe the Cap'n's just not aware yet...
>
> Go On... No you tell him:
> Okay...
> No more universalising now Captain Smears. Yes, the ol'
> jugger' is a big old vessel Cap'n, but you'll have to
> pull her in i'm afraid...
> ...
> Well, no, it's... well, while you were away Cap'n, you
> and the crew, yes, her, and the ship, well, there was a
> vote you see.
> ...
> No, yes, it was in all the papers. Oh, yes, yeah, the
> one's you told me not to send you. Oh, sorry, I forgot,
> yes, and it was also in all the news you asked the
> entire crew not to talk about after the last 'bad
> news'... yes, invariably Cap'n. Yes, bad. No, of course
> you're right...
> ...
> Yes, i'm sorry, I know, yes, depressing. But that's why
> you told us not to tell you, but...
> ...
> Continue, oh, sorry, well, Cap'n, yes there was a vote.
> ...
> Yes, a vote. Oh no sorry cap'n a 'popular vote'. No,
> not just us, no, well, yes, your mum did vote too.
> Yes... How many? Well, how can I put it...
> ...
> No, more. Okay, well, the whole world.
> ...
> No. I mean voted. No I mean the whole world.
> ...
> I'm not making faces. No I'm gesturing to indicate
> magnitude. Yes, a lot... No, I'm not being abtruse
> again.
> ...
> I'm sorry I'm not being nasty...No. OK.
> ...
> Yes, that's right. Yes, every human being in the world
> voted. And yes. No, Ohh, I don't know how... It's not
> the point.
> ...
> No, Yes...They decided that the Juggernaut had to stop.
> No, the... No, of Capitalism. Yes, that's right. This
> Old Juggy here.
> ...
> I'm sorry Cap, but everyone agreed. Too many
> inefficiencies, inequities, yes, but the repairers
> always replicate... No, it's not progress. No it's more
> like 'more of the same, but with even more'...
> ...
> Yeah, like excess. Yes, as you suggest Cap'n [waxing
> wise in the politico-economical]...yes, Cap'n, you are
> very astute.
> ...
> Yes, only 'economic progress' is valued across the
> board as a measure of success. Or, I mean 'progress'...
> Isn't that the definition? Of 'progress'... an increase
> in economic success.
> ... Blah, blah, script keeps going, so?...
>
> So, history has seen as 'progress', somehow, doing the
> same sorts of things differently... or in different
> levels, in different ways, using different modes, of
> expression, consumption, blah blah... isn't this
> 'progress':
> doing the same things more excessively, rather than
> really wondering, first, what progress means at all.
>
> ???QQQ
>
> How do we progress?
>
> Firstly, how do we measure 'value'?
>
> What is the source of your certainty, Doug, that
> 'global oppression', even exists?
> Do you mean that I feel a bit oppressed this morning
> because I had to get up early. For Work!!! Damn work.
> Damn getting up early, damn losing my wife, my kids.
> ...That 50 bucks... damn, 50... means I'll have to work
> again tomorrow... get that 50 bucks back... after all,
> i'll have nothing to blow on the horses, and getting
> drunk this weekend. if i don't make back the money i
> lost this morning...
>
> damn capitalism... i'm chained to the yoke of the
> juggernaut of opression. Capitalism.
>
> Really, Doug, what are you talking about? Or are you
> having us on back there, in your last mail?
>
> >>>???
> Please tell me how, in your own life, you reach
> decisions about what is good and what is bad?
>
> <<<???
> What is on the 'nice' side of the line that divides off
> what is 'oppressive' about the world?
>
> And, again, how do you decide?
> ?? ??
> ???<><>???
> ? ? ?
> ? W ?
> <<>>
> ><
> >>>>>>>> ??????? .
> Please tell me if you have some answers. Because I'd
> like to know how anyone can be said to be 'shirking
> responsibility' for anything, just because they fail to
> articulate or provide coherent theoretical bases for
> their lives.
>
> Please bear this in mind, Doug. That failing to say
> exactly 'why' (in what way it can be said, in so many
> words) the way people live their lives now is 'bad', or
> 'wrong', or 'encouraging', or 'unproductive', 'too
> academic', too hard-headedly 'materialistic', etc..
> Failing to say things and failing to do are very
> importantly different things.
>
> It need not be pointed out, I'm sure, I hope...
> that many 'theorists' who are currently failing their
> responsibilities, right now, as we speak.
> ...Yes, skivving, shirking their calls to arms, are,
> despite this... specific, (thoughtful, if not
> intellectual) members of their own communities.
>
> We should do what we feel we should do to live as we
> feel we should be living... But, if this sounds like
> 'commonsense', right, or 'wrong', as a description of
> 'how to live life', Doug, what does it mean... why,
> anyway, is this monster of capitalism the central
> organising feature of your current perception of 'the
> wrong about the world'?
>
> and if capitalism structurates your world, should it be
> the pivotal focus of the lives of others.. all
> others... then, who? how? why?
>
> ----------- ================ --------------
> I would really appreciate any responses to anything
> that was able to be read, and/or found coherent, or
> not, by anyone. Yes... Take Care, and, of course, extra
> points for certain answers... Yes, certain ones, of
> which you are absolutely certain.
>
> regards,
> al
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> This email has been sent from Australia's Education
> Internet gateway: http://www.australia.edu
> Sign-up for your free email today
> ------------------- ------- ---------------------------------
>