dreamdate ken wrote:
>
> !!!???!!!
>So we are left with the regulative principle of hope. Isn't this a
>bit Blochian? And could it not be said that "raising the idea of hope to
the
>level of a principle is akin to running amok to God?"
>
ken, i usually like to watch you wank and sometimes i help even. i've been a good partner haven't i. but come on ken.......errrr.....ummm....i mean this beating around the bush is getting boring to watch. and i'm like into scopophilia when i'm in the mood but not for damn ever!!!!!!!!!!
see, once again i'm supposed to desire your desire and no one cares about my desire. and sick of it damn it.
>I don't see myself as stopping time at all. Isn't Bernstein's
>reconciliation / rupture an attempt to capture dialectics at a
>standstill? (which is why he can neither point to a
>reconciliation or a rupture - rather their own simultaneity).
no. simultaneous. his example of his rel. with rorty
>> and your objection is.....?
>
>The hierarchy. This is the terror. You have good citizens
>(democrats) and bad citizens (everyone else). The motivation
>to participate is one of fear, the fear of being identified as a
>bad citizen. The obligation to participate, hailed as the always
>already presuppositions of language, leads people into acting
>instrumentally toward each other.
>
tough luck. if you had your way you'd impose "don't give up on your desire on everyone else too. no diff.
barbie
it's the 'vette tonight honeybunch. vroom vroom.