RE: The new, improved Sophie's Choice...

Robbie, Barbara and Lyotard are *better* sources for John's arguments then
what he actually writes in his posts. And their conclusions and points are
*better* than our conclusions or even *goofy chatter in on-screen internet
posts. These type set and printed books are *better* than anything you can
type here and now since it is not properly controlled and all that. John's
position is tied to specifics and contexts except when generalized by
Barbara and Lyotard but don't worry Robbie it does not mean they are better
positions just ones that John *likes* more so don't bother with them unless
you're one of those guys that eats off everyone's fork at the dinner table
to see what it tastes like. Remember, rhetoric and power is for specific
moments unless it is about rhetoric and power but John assures us that it is
not always about rhetoric and power after his lecture about the myth of
Truth and superiority of a *world* view based on rhetoric and power. Ah
well, Robbie, you are wrong because that is how John *likes* it, you should
know that by now. All that is left is not sadness (contrary to John) but
LAUGHTER! And I bet John knew it would end up like this also.
Daniel

As for the rest, to respond would be only to repeat myself. I like Kafka
more than I like Thompson. But I don't wish to claim any, what was your
phrase, "primary greater worth" for one over the other. I have already
explained why. If you can't believe I would truly take such a position,
perhaps it would help matters if you read, for instance, *Contingencies of
Value*, by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, where you would find the appropriate,
detailed, fully developed philosophical argument concerning this position.
That would be much more useful at this point that continuing this goofy
chatter in on-screen internet posts.

You seem to think it is accusing me of something to say that I make
judgments. Nonsense. I make judgments all the time. I love doing it. I
just think those judgments are momentary, specific to very particular
questions, not general ones, and are made within and respecting an
impossibly large field of the other, radically heterogeneous judgments about
the same texts that make up cultural and historical and personal
experiences. Lyotard's *Just Gaming* would help you out here, if you are
really interested.

And my claims long ago about rhetorics of power were made, again,
specifically in terms of certain moments of discourse (like this one, here,
now) and not in terms of my own personal relation to art (or love). Why you
think I must feel exactly the same way about everything because I feel that
way about one thing remains a mystery. It's an assumption you seem to share
with Daniel, and I find this demand for unwavering absolute consistency of
position in all things almost robotic. It's certainly, at the very least, a
demand I want no part of -- being, after all, a human. "A foolish
consistency truly is the hobgoblin...." Well, I won't write the rest, or
you'll accuse me of being condescending.

I knew things would end up precisely this way.

And they have.
--John
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Dec 22 11:01:01 2003