>Anyway, what you point to: this THIS is what it is
>all about; this is what, *ultimately*
>matters and why we should bother at all. I'm working
>on an article right
>now developing the argument that marxist theories need
>to be considered on the basis of whether or not they
>explain social change adequately on an
>ontological/epistemological level.
I'm interested in the ontological/epistemological stuff. I just started Judith Butler's Psychic Life of Power and in the intro she writes, p. 23:
Freud distinguishes between repression and foreclosure, suggesting that a repressed desire might once have lived apart from its prohibition, but that foreclosed desire is rigorously barred, constituting the subject through a certain kind of preemptive loss. Elsewhere I have suggested that the foreclosure of homosexuality appears to be foundational to a certain heterosexual version of the subject. The formula "I have never loved" someone of similar gender and "I have never lost" any such person predicates the "I" on the "never-never" of that love and loss. Indeed, the ontological accomplishment of heterosexual "being" is traced to this double negation, which forms its constitutive melancholia, an emphatic and irreversible loss that forms the tenuous basis of that "being."
(end exerpt)
I'll tell you
>more if'n you'd like.
I'm really interested in this. Tell us more!
But don't worry I don't leave
>people out; I connect the abstract discussion w/
>actual work done involving a community fight against a
>radioactive nuke dump
-Alec
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com