Ram wrote about the UN programme-Let me clear-up any misunderstandings about
this
program that I have read in the previous e-mails
He went on to say -The basic goal of the UN event is to create dialogue
between civilizations through poetry. I don't know
what 'dialogue' means and I don't know what
'civilizations' means either. That is up to you to
define.
Only three words
Positions smack resistance
Rises up licence
Visit gross efficiency
Lies is irresistible
Looked a bollock
Dire vicious recession
Rich class action
Sufficient to mission
Section to addition
Rice dish position
(S)Lavish security junket
1 dagger Deloitte
Ad luck ballot
Sweat island dialogue
Dialogue not allowed
Daylight won't arise
Sink vision civilization
Civilisation die desire
Champ shot dialogue
Dying for Baghdad
Diet too (s)lavish
Civilisations of resistance
Arise acceptance message
A done deal
Moderate serious commitment
It would be one thing if the UN resolution meant 'nothing', semiotic
slippage designed to allow 'other' voices. A kind of Derridarian strategy.
But it's not. It is purposefully proposing the impossible by blandly
conflating time and space the better to hoodwink, denude and enclose. Like
the idea that we are all looking now for 'community', leaving out any
difference between communities of resistance or acceptance. I'm neither a
linguist or Anarchist but I suggest Chomsky and bargepoles. I think 'working
from the inside' sits ill here.
paul
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|