*adam whosis writes:
>I have a certain fascination for what, my own interior vernacular, i think
>of as "fundamentalist logic" and this PC thing smells like that so i tried
>to think it through:
ohfuckmedead! he's got his "own" interior vernacular and a sniffer to go with it. show's over folks. time to go home. fat lady's sang twice now elena. let's go out for hot fudge sundaes after this show, coz adam has his own, particular critique of fundamentalist logic [no foundationalist fundamentalism there! nope. nuh huh]
anyway, having fun wit' ya, but you really need to consider this bizzo about some internal ticker and accompanying sniffer you got there that. you can sniff out fundamentalist logic,eh? sounds mysterious and magical to me... sounds like obscurantism to me. hell, it sounds like wiccan. you a warlock, there adam?
anyway, anway. onward.
> a lot about performative contradiction
yeah, well me 'n' ken got a thang goin' on... which reminds, i need musical accompaniment, damn it. max, where ya been baby. i want my lyrics now! my speakers work! yeeehah.
anyway, ken doll and barbie grrRl here got a long standing public, performative affair re habermas. essentially, we both studied him once upon a time and we both have BIG probs with him. [in fact i've not read the dude in about 5 years] but hey, when ken gets all critical, i just gots to bitch at him and defend habermas when otherwise i might not. [i do this with lots of theorists. someone doesn't like butler, i defend her. someone likes butler, i criticize her. contrarian that way, see. for and against. ...] in fact, it particularly irks me that ken has dumped hab for zizek and is all religious about zizek. so i gotta give him back some of his own meds.
it's called: neurotic. ken and i have the most neurotic intellectual exchanges on the planet. all there is to it. we love it/hate it. [ken has a line for that one, maybe he'll toss it about now...........]
>can't spring the PC thing on me yet, right?
honey bunch, i sprang it on ya from the beginning. didn't you feel that little pinch, like when you got a polio shot when you were little. no? well sometimes you don't feel a thang, i guess.
but anway, you are arguing that my claims aren't valid. this is one of the aspects of the ideal speech situation--that the speaker is making a valid claim and can or is willing to prove it [logical, evidence, etc --you know, like when t. byfiled asked one mr sam pawlett to cite some refs instead of saying, "some people say....." so, you say that my argument isn't valid, a perfectly reasonable thing to do, then you are, in fact, invoking the ideal speech sit.
would prob. help to know the whole argument first. i was abbreviated with ken re the specifics [as i nonted] because i didn't want to get all technicial in a discussion that didn't require such technical specifics. but if you'd like to know more........... i'm gonna throw a lateral pass to ken doll, k? i gotta finish this friggin web page --the only damn reason i'm logged on a this hour.
>furthermore i say "... has some problems as a representation of "coming to
>an understanding"/the performative of being serious, etc. (i.e. whatever
>ground outside its own language that it's supposed to cover) because..."
errr what thefuck are you talking about willis?
you might have a point. but, as i said, you probably need to read habermas or, at least, a good critique of him. ken, got refs for this young man?
smoochy smooches
hugs and eternal blood sucking kisses,
kY problem [kirsten's nickname for me]