Rotating Bitch wrote:
>
>
> Butler says in the post Doug quoted. It has a history. It's apiece of
> jargon that people hate so much that requires that you are steeped in
> aphilosophical tradition. Dog knows, that's bad. Everything must be
> immediately transparent and fucking easy to understand.
>
> Plus, if you'd read the rest, you'd probably understanding about engaging
> in outragous, over-the-top performance.
That really undercuts it, because the "over-the-top" performance is a
stage performance by the X that originally _was_ its performance.
>
> *sign*
>
> Feedback -- real feedback -- might mean reading the whole thing yanno?
It was real feedback. Your clarification of Butler was so successful that it revealed her as a hoax.
I spent about six weeks back in '99 doing nothing much but going through that whole Introduction to Bodies that Matter over and over again, sentence by sentence. And there is no real difficulty in it, as your commentary reveals, there is only a pretence of translating historical materialism into Lacanian double-speak. No one has ever shown how there is a gain involved. Doug repeatedly reposts this fragment of the Introduction, but he has never explained how it, concretely, illumines the topic at hand; without out exception one can make the point without using Butler. She is pretty consistently redundant.
Carrol
>
> http://blog.pulpculture.org/2005/11/18/shuttle-click/
>
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk