Dear Keith,

thanks for reminding me about Northern Exposure, a blast from the 
past and a TV show I really loved. cheers, teena

>Dear Teena
>
>yep - even the bad animals deserve time on stage - and, I don't 
>think it is all that difficult, ethically, to presume inclusion 
>rather than shrug - Sartre reminds us that the French see the idiot 
>as their idiot - we exclude idiots which is a problem, at the 
>ethical level and possibly at the design level. I really admire the 
>character in Northern Exposure, Marilyn Whirlwind. She has the 
>answers when no-one has answers. She often announces what has been 
>denied, excluded, overlooked. Part of her Wikipedia entry is given 
>below.
>
>>>>
>Marilyn Whirlwind was a fictional character in the television show 
>Northern Exposure, played by Elaine Miles.
>
>A heavyset Tlingit, Marilyn works as a receptionist for Joel 
>Fleischman. She is noted for her taciturn, enigmatic manner, cynical 
>wisdom, and utter unflappability. In the episode "The Bumpy Road to 
>Love," Fleischman, having spent most of the episode held captive by 
>the misanthropic Adam, returns after days of absence, utterly 
>disheveled, still wearing the chains with which Adam had bound him, 
>but his condition elicited no reaction from Marilyn whatsoever. When 
>Fleischman expressed incredulity at this, Marilyn simply responded, 
>"Your sterile sponges arrived." (Wikipedia)
>>>>
>
>>>>  teena clerke <[log in to unmask]> 07/02/08 9:59 AM >>>
>Dear Keith,
>
>I agree, and also suggest that in the naming of what gets excluded,
>that which we name also gets privileged (selected) at the expense of
>something else that remains unnamed (excluded). Such is the bind in
>language. Perhaps it's a futile exercise after all to attempt to
>write these things? In the end, I suppose we might only draw on our
>ethics to guide our motivations for the practices of naming and
>excluding certain things and not others (these are dangerous times).
>Even (especially) kids dressed up in bad animal suits have a place on
>some stages, as do ball point pens, which I personally love to write
>with.
>
>cheers, teena
>
>  >Dear Teena
>  >
>  >Of all the exclusions it is only those that we bother to attend to
>>that get called excluded. This again is part of the agony. I am
>>excluded from the life of a ball point pen - it exceeds me and
>>excludes me and doesn't even bother the talk to me. This has annoyed
>>me all my life.
>>
>>Equally, the chorus, in a drama, is excluded from the action, and
>>yet it performs the action of commentary. When the chorus starts to
>>voice interventions then it has stopped being a chorus and has taken
>>on the role of an actor.
>>
>>I don't mind the return of the repressed and suppressed and
>>unmentioned and whatever else seeks its moment on the stage. Putting
>>things on the stage might be the start of a dialectic but also it
>>might just be a gathering of lots of kids dressed up in bad animal
>>suits. The announcing of a dialectic is a highly selective logical
>>game that produces as many new exclusions (if not more) than it set
>>out to synthesis. Saint Francis was given a restricted licence
>>because the kinds of distinctions he was making were deemed too
>>confusing and dangerous for the uneducated who might think he
>>actually meant what he said (did I mean my story about the ball
>>point pen?).
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>keith
>>