On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 harrawoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Laurence Paul Hemming raises the very interesting issue of consensus in
> Heidegger, but not before permitting himself a commentary on the endless
> drivel that has dominated the list, of which he is a critic but not a
> participant. I think its clear to everybody that this distinction no
> longer plays. The people who came in late to critizise this flame are
> now indistinguishable from it -- as is witnessed by the recent exchanges
> between Suzanne and Michael Antonucci. There might be a way into talking
> about consensus here, Laurence, if you'll let me run with the ball a little.
>
> The thing about flames is it turns us all into flamers. <snip>
> to talk with Babich you must in many respects share the language she
> uses, one becomes Babich. <snip>
>
> Michael
>
Ah well, in a different voice, my *final* 2 cents:
a quicksilver thought on a tray,
mind-fucked, rabid...frothing,
sucking your brain,
going down hard,
will rip your guts out,
serve them to the dogs,
kick and stir them with my toe,
sampling the stuff yer made of,
finding only offal...
best left to the demons,
that drive this machine.
they like blood and odor.
makes them keen for the next bite,
and the next bite...
and the next bite..."
are you bitten yet?
Wondering what demons drive *this* textual machine...and the poet waves
goodbye to flames and drivel.
sm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---