Comrade Cox argues:
Daniel is a schmuck. Steve Philion is correct -- Daniel is the Buffalo.
Carrol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ I dont understand your code words, comrades. I missed that cell meeting, perhaps 'twas off-list. What do I say when I meet the guys in trench coats again? "The bats in your belfry only fly at dawn?"
1. How can I be a Schmuck and a Buffalo? An eccentric, if not unpleasant and large shaggy-haired brown bison of North American plains. So, pale-face, what is your problem with us?
2. Who is my "dialectical twin" (an "evil dialectical twin" I assume?). Is it Max? Carrol, do *you* want an oxen-sized insect invading your house? What if we aufgehoben in your living room? Oh, dialectics!
3. Who do I exist to obscure, or should I say occlude? Or is it to deny something, yet again? [What was the tab again? Posties deny reality, Said denies histmat, Derrida denies history, Doug denies desires...etc.etc.; this is not negative dialectics so much as paranoia imho]
4. Up the dosage comrades, up the dosage! Sur le pave, the pharmacy!
buffy
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> In other
> words, Habermas's "ideal speech situation" and "lifeworld" are dialectical
> twins (individualism and organicism) that exist to obscure the primary &
> secondary contradictions of the bourgeois civil society: class, gender,
> race, and so on. This relationship between individualism and organicism (even specialized versions of organicism, as in organic conceptions of poems) is something I've been convinced of for a quarter of a century but have never quite been able to explicate to my own satisfaction. You are probably right in labelling them as dialectical twins -- but I'd like to see this claim worked out in more detail than I've ever been able to.
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------