|
i am unclear on what the argument is that links these last two posts--except as a curious sequence of riffs on the word "obvious." it seems to me that this is an example of incommensurate language games. the question then becomes what, if any, point there is in continuing along these lines.
let's take this seriously for a second: what emerges between these last two posts is a fundamental disagreement about the scope of the political. cyn's position appears to be aimed at reducing its purview to the immediate. host's is geared around a type of account of the context within which the immediate unfolds. there is no reason in principle why these cannot be placed into contact one with the other--but that does not seem to be the point.
another way: there is no opposition between the circuit of everyday life and the broader informational and institutional contexts that shape it. when you retreat into the immediate, you perform the effects of context. when you seal yourself up in the immediate, you do nothing but perform context. there is no way out: you cannot opt out, you cannot pretend that the larger environments have no effect when the decision to avoid these larger environments is symptomatic of the ideological field in general, when the move is itself a repetition.
what is going on?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|