This was another facet...some woman thought Babich was sweet - I suspect
a matriarchal conspiracy.
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, N. Antonucci wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Suzanne Mckenzie (PHI) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I too am a lurker on this list, but a very observant one. I am a
> > philosopher, a teacher, and a cyberphile. It amuses me that virtually all
> > of you seem to think this forum has suffered some irremediable blow to
> > its very 'being', if you will. I admire BB's spite and spunk, though I
>
> I think that the list has suffered a blow, or an interruption, in its
> process of 'becoming'. Time and emotional energy have been put in
> unproductive, and, frankly, violent directions. Also, even if the
> concept of an electronic polis is another bankrupt gasp from a dying
> metaphysics, INDIVIDUALS have suffered violent blowsa through discourse,
> and I will leave it to THEM to determine how remediable their wounds
> might be(come).
>
> > don't often agree with her. What I appreciate is her willingness to
> > diverge from *accepted* academic discourse. Please tell me where the
>
> I don't think that transgression is automatically admirable. It is in
> many cases, of course, but not simply by virtue of its transgressive
> nature. I could put my cat on the keyboard and produce a post that would
> "diverge from *accepted academic discourse," (and possibly be more
> comprehensible than some of this poetry:) but would, I hope, receive few
> accolades as a result.
>
> > written or unwritten rule is that says humans who will disagree
> > vehemently in person _cannot_ do the same on a list. For the most part, I
>
> I don't think anyone's frustration results uniquely from the fora in
> which these disaqgreements occur. I would apply my comments here to a
> similar "real-time" vehement disagreement. Violence and degradation are
> more important here than the means for their transmission.
> For the unwritten ethical rules that violent degradation in discourse is
> unacceptable, I might direct you to some of my more philosophically
> competent colleagues here, or Levinas, if that fails.
>
> > find the typical academic tenor a bore. It bores me in print, it makes
> > your curriculum vitae look good, and gains you a pat on the back from
> > your university, but it is rarely original, often is a rework of a
> > previously equally boring treatise, and adds nothing to understanding,
> > while adding a great deal to paper glut. And there you have the reason
>
> :):):):):):):):)
>
> The job dissatisfaction listserv is down the hall I think.
>
> :):):):):):):):):):)
>
> > why I am a cyberphile. I want what this list has often given. Learning,
> > dialectic, exchange in all its ugly, gloriousl vitality. Why do you mull
>
> YOu don't need a computer for this kind of dialectic exchange - I would
> direct you to Ricki Lake, or perhaps the Tempestt show. I do ont find
> violence glorious, and although I do profess an admiration for conflict
> between ADMITTED equals, combatants who attempt to promote their
> arguments by proving their opponent base simply turn my stomach.
>
> the non-death of this list even as you ponder its murder? > > S. McKenzie
>
> Did anyone advance the "death of the list"? If they did, they were
> probably just subcumbbing to a popular cliche. Honestly, the next time I
> see a book or article title containing the phrase "The Death of X," I
> may tear out all my hair.
>
> I understand the instinct to admire a raging iconoclast who disrupts a
> slow and difficult consensus building process with Sturm und Strang.
> Endorsement of this instinct, however, might bring us closer to the
> object of our discussion than we might care to be.
>
> MIchael ANtonucci
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
a matriarchal conspiracy.
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, N. Antonucci wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Suzanne Mckenzie (PHI) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I too am a lurker on this list, but a very observant one. I am a
> > philosopher, a teacher, and a cyberphile. It amuses me that virtually all
> > of you seem to think this forum has suffered some irremediable blow to
> > its very 'being', if you will. I admire BB's spite and spunk, though I
>
> I think that the list has suffered a blow, or an interruption, in its
> process of 'becoming'. Time and emotional energy have been put in
> unproductive, and, frankly, violent directions. Also, even if the
> concept of an electronic polis is another bankrupt gasp from a dying
> metaphysics, INDIVIDUALS have suffered violent blowsa through discourse,
> and I will leave it to THEM to determine how remediable their wounds
> might be(come).
>
> > don't often agree with her. What I appreciate is her willingness to
> > diverge from *accepted* academic discourse. Please tell me where the
>
> I don't think that transgression is automatically admirable. It is in
> many cases, of course, but not simply by virtue of its transgressive
> nature. I could put my cat on the keyboard and produce a post that would
> "diverge from *accepted academic discourse," (and possibly be more
> comprehensible than some of this poetry:) but would, I hope, receive few
> accolades as a result.
>
> > written or unwritten rule is that says humans who will disagree
> > vehemently in person _cannot_ do the same on a list. For the most part, I
>
> I don't think anyone's frustration results uniquely from the fora in
> which these disaqgreements occur. I would apply my comments here to a
> similar "real-time" vehement disagreement. Violence and degradation are
> more important here than the means for their transmission.
> For the unwritten ethical rules that violent degradation in discourse is
> unacceptable, I might direct you to some of my more philosophically
> competent colleagues here, or Levinas, if that fails.
>
> > find the typical academic tenor a bore. It bores me in print, it makes
> > your curriculum vitae look good, and gains you a pat on the back from
> > your university, but it is rarely original, often is a rework of a
> > previously equally boring treatise, and adds nothing to understanding,
> > while adding a great deal to paper glut. And there you have the reason
>
> :):):):):):):):)
>
> The job dissatisfaction listserv is down the hall I think.
>
> :):):):):):):):):):)
>
> > why I am a cyberphile. I want what this list has often given. Learning,
> > dialectic, exchange in all its ugly, gloriousl vitality. Why do you mull
>
> YOu don't need a computer for this kind of dialectic exchange - I would
> direct you to Ricki Lake, or perhaps the Tempestt show. I do ont find
> violence glorious, and although I do profess an admiration for conflict
> between ADMITTED equals, combatants who attempt to promote their
> arguments by proving their opponent base simply turn my stomach.
>
> the non-death of this list even as you ponder its murder? > > S. McKenzie
>
> Did anyone advance the "death of the list"? If they did, they were
> probably just subcumbbing to a popular cliche. Honestly, the next time I
> see a book or article title containing the phrase "The Death of X," I
> may tear out all my hair.
>
> I understand the instinct to admire a raging iconoclast who disrupts a
> slow and difficult consensus building process with Sturm und Strang.
> Endorsement of this instinct, however, might bring us closer to the
> object of our discussion than we might care to be.
>
> MIchael ANtonucci
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---