MF, while I agree in the main with your comments on the pomos vis a vis
'escaping what?', lets not get too cozy with a 'totality.' That's
more the domain of rationalists and such. Even if you say it's for
the sake of having a destination (destiny?), there is the danger of
hitting the target. (And then where would we go??) Now convergence
(linearity, 'necessity', etc.) has *a* value, the one where if we put
it in our theories, it helps us get smarter about ourselves and the
universe and all... go
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> and i understand -- even while abhoring -- the desire to turn thought
> into poetry, as it were . . . but what i don't at all get is the rigid
> refusal
> of any move that would "make the world a totality" . . . presumably on
> the grounds that such a move requires misrepresentation -- would be a
> kind of false consciousness . . .
>
> BUT . . . if indeed totalizing moves are, by their nature, impossible,
> surely there is no need to willfully flee from the linear, since one would
> never be able to achieve it in any case . . . thus it seems that the
> intentional skirting of coherence is a way of creating with one's
> discourse the very circumstance that the discourse claims to be
> naming as pre-existent . . . or, to put it aother way, does JMC live
> in any less a post modern world by virtue of having offered so totalizing
> and clear an overview of D & G's glossary? . . . i would think not . . .
|