To be serious for a moment, the list, like all communication, is among
other things performative. Satire (as opposed to irony) is performative
pure and simple, rendering conversation about anything but the satire
difficult. That's why it's disruptive on a list--it's as if you started
doing performance art in the middle of a conversation and wondered why
people found it annoying after say the first thirty seconds.
A note on translations from inflected languages: English, if it keeps the
case ending at all, in general uses the nominative, regardless of the case
in the original. Cicero is always Cicero.
At 06:29 AM 10/20/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>I publically repent:
>
>tonight a friend ( a philosopher) came for dinner to my house, and, being
>asked to involve himself
>(as I always managed to do) in a conversation about Poetryetc, he commented
>the Office of Satire as a deply reactionary one.
>I was obviously shocked, since I always regarded myself as everything other
>than a reactionary person.
>
>
>I shall immediately stop any form of voluntary and involuntary satire.
>I do not want to risk to pass as a right wing little Devil..
>I am, I have always been, left wing in all my purposes. And if satire is
>regarded as a right wing activity, then I shall
>hold my tongue, have it butchered and sold in the town market for L. 4.40.
>Please, forgive me. My friend the Philosopher says that satire is
>reactionary since it puts under the attack
>of cynicism something that potentially could change.
>
>I imagine many of you agree with him.
>I will become as good as a Saint and as well behaved as my Aunt Fanny from
>NY..
>
>Sus-Angel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: egg <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:06 PM
>Subject: Dialogue between civilisations
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|