John, are you playing the dumb?
If so, it is very interesting your sincere muted
behavior -concerning to your questions-. Maybe you are
niggardly on sexual matters, but this might mean that
you could be niggardly about almost everything, even
sharing ideas. Your are interrogating me as a real
mistagoge, and i am enjoying so much the fact that you
seem to think that i am naive. First of all, let us
review: you said that In Utero was a critique of
scientia sexualis; then, i replied that you must have
been listening Nirvana too much: i apologize for being
ironic about that, i must accept that i was wrong:
perhaps you were simply remembering with a sort of
nostalgia the music that sometime and somehow you
liked and enjoyed very much. Actually, i truly think
that it is because of this retrospective musical
implication that perhaps you were finding some
relations underneath some of the readings and
interpretations you have made about Foucaults
work...perhaps. This always happens when there is
somehow a punctum between the things we think to like
or the things that move our emotions. The moment the
thought is de-folding happens from a
desterritorialization movement (just like listening to
music or even remembering how much you liked it) Maybe
this happened to you, and maybe this explains why you
have associated In Utero as a critique of scientia
sexualis (your reterritorialization movement).
Unfortunately it is only you who really knows what you
have been codificating. Maybe you do not want to know
it, and of course you probably will not share it.
Until now, you have never exchanged the arguments to
explain your first assertion. You are developing the
scientia sexualis principle: you have the dirty little
secret, you want me to confess, but i am hoping that
your next post will be not an expanded but an extended
argumentation explaining why you think In Utero is a
critique of scientia sexualis.
((It is highly interesting to me how this muted
behavior you have adopted chains some polemical
expressions (those that fill your ego) like mine,
thereafter the sad posted missoginity dropped off by
L.V. to defend you in order to insult me: i am not
blaming you for that, -please do not be so foolish to
think that-, i just want you to understand what
happens when there is a dirty little secret behavior,
a mistagogical position, a dumbness blackhole that no
longer shines and that anything could never scape out
of it... i rather prefer to share my thought and
opinions and hopefully crash and burn if i am wrong:
as you see, i am not intellectually coward)) So I will
confess, oh grandiose mouthless priest...
Firstly you wrote:
> I, however, will excercise my judgement in whether
> others will gain anything from the exchange.
This is what i was talking about...Mistagogical
behavior: it is alike that good political conscience
that i spoke about some posts ago...(maybe worst). For
me, a monolithic grandilocuent autopoeitical assertion
is not any exchangeable for the list but could be
useful to top up your ego (forget the judgements, you
are just cheating yourself). I repeat, I rather prefer
to go into the machinic process, and recognize happily
that i have everyones gift: the valuable gift of
having the possibility (surely) of being mistaken...
losing ego again!!
Then you said:
> I respect that English is probably not your first
> language but some of your apperently grand
> observations do not follow proper grammer, making it
> difficult to ascertain what you are trying to say.
I am glad you mention this, but i rather prefer that
you could bring a constructive critic by saying on
which cases i am mistaken grammar (i am not trying to
hide it) If you find difficult to ascertain what i am
trying to say, you should try to relax and do not take
each word literally (or you may go mad) and please d-o
n-o-t t-r-y t-o s-p-e-l-l t-h-e-m o-u-t (cause
that is for idiots).
As i understand it, ars erotica refers to the practice
and the art of sexuality eradicated of the occidental
culture, so scientia sexualis is what remains instead
of an ars erotica knowledge. What I was trying to say
is that the confession principle has been implicated
so deeply into the occidental establishment, that
every form of art (which leads us to every form of
sexuality) could represent an interrogation of that
principle. I am not interested if your anal-itical
retention does not agree with this expanded statement.
If you are edipizazing yourself does not give you the
right to edipizaze the others. It seems that the truth
always shines when it is not related to you, and when
it does, it is obscure questionable and doubtable
(like that clinical view which you have adopted
concerned to the scientia sexualis) and must remember
that not everyone wants to know the truth, mostly when
it could make up visibility about your foolish
existence...
Just keep on holding out to your secret, John...
And a REAL intellectual exchange is not anathema to
me, but i will no waste my time with someone that pale
with his own thoughts and that do not have the balls
to gap and challenge himself, someone that is not
opened up, someone so sheltered, i mean, someone like
you...
But, thanks anyway for your understanding...
adr
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
If so, it is very interesting your sincere muted
behavior -concerning to your questions-. Maybe you are
niggardly on sexual matters, but this might mean that
you could be niggardly about almost everything, even
sharing ideas. Your are interrogating me as a real
mistagoge, and i am enjoying so much the fact that you
seem to think that i am naive. First of all, let us
review: you said that In Utero was a critique of
scientia sexualis; then, i replied that you must have
been listening Nirvana too much: i apologize for being
ironic about that, i must accept that i was wrong:
perhaps you were simply remembering with a sort of
nostalgia the music that sometime and somehow you
liked and enjoyed very much. Actually, i truly think
that it is because of this retrospective musical
implication that perhaps you were finding some
relations underneath some of the readings and
interpretations you have made about Foucaults
work...perhaps. This always happens when there is
somehow a punctum between the things we think to like
or the things that move our emotions. The moment the
thought is de-folding happens from a
desterritorialization movement (just like listening to
music or even remembering how much you liked it) Maybe
this happened to you, and maybe this explains why you
have associated In Utero as a critique of scientia
sexualis (your reterritorialization movement).
Unfortunately it is only you who really knows what you
have been codificating. Maybe you do not want to know
it, and of course you probably will not share it.
Until now, you have never exchanged the arguments to
explain your first assertion. You are developing the
scientia sexualis principle: you have the dirty little
secret, you want me to confess, but i am hoping that
your next post will be not an expanded but an extended
argumentation explaining why you think In Utero is a
critique of scientia sexualis.
((It is highly interesting to me how this muted
behavior you have adopted chains some polemical
expressions (those that fill your ego) like mine,
thereafter the sad posted missoginity dropped off by
L.V. to defend you in order to insult me: i am not
blaming you for that, -please do not be so foolish to
think that-, i just want you to understand what
happens when there is a dirty little secret behavior,
a mistagogical position, a dumbness blackhole that no
longer shines and that anything could never scape out
of it... i rather prefer to share my thought and
opinions and hopefully crash and burn if i am wrong:
as you see, i am not intellectually coward)) So I will
confess, oh grandiose mouthless priest...
Firstly you wrote:
> I, however, will excercise my judgement in whether
> others will gain anything from the exchange.
This is what i was talking about...Mistagogical
behavior: it is alike that good political conscience
that i spoke about some posts ago...(maybe worst). For
me, a monolithic grandilocuent autopoeitical assertion
is not any exchangeable for the list but could be
useful to top up your ego (forget the judgements, you
are just cheating yourself). I repeat, I rather prefer
to go into the machinic process, and recognize happily
that i have everyones gift: the valuable gift of
having the possibility (surely) of being mistaken...
losing ego again!!
Then you said:
> I respect that English is probably not your first
> language but some of your apperently grand
> observations do not follow proper grammer, making it
> difficult to ascertain what you are trying to say.
I am glad you mention this, but i rather prefer that
you could bring a constructive critic by saying on
which cases i am mistaken grammar (i am not trying to
hide it) If you find difficult to ascertain what i am
trying to say, you should try to relax and do not take
each word literally (or you may go mad) and please d-o
n-o-t t-r-y t-o s-p-e-l-l t-h-e-m o-u-t (cause
that is for idiots).
As i understand it, ars erotica refers to the practice
and the art of sexuality eradicated of the occidental
culture, so scientia sexualis is what remains instead
of an ars erotica knowledge. What I was trying to say
is that the confession principle has been implicated
so deeply into the occidental establishment, that
every form of art (which leads us to every form of
sexuality) could represent an interrogation of that
principle. I am not interested if your anal-itical
retention does not agree with this expanded statement.
If you are edipizazing yourself does not give you the
right to edipizaze the others. It seems that the truth
always shines when it is not related to you, and when
it does, it is obscure questionable and doubtable
(like that clinical view which you have adopted
concerned to the scientia sexualis) and must remember
that not everyone wants to know the truth, mostly when
it could make up visibility about your foolish
existence...
Just keep on holding out to your secret, John...
And a REAL intellectual exchange is not anathema to
me, but i will no waste my time with someone that pale
with his own thoughts and that do not have the balls
to gap and challenge himself, someone that is not
opened up, someone so sheltered, i mean, someone like
you...
But, thanks anyway for your understanding...
adr
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com