Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: mitravaruna



sometimes when i'm reading bataille, it seems like something very simple
is being said, but so much force is going into making the point that i
feel it must be something harder to hear.  and all the ways the point is
made must not be merely to demonstrate it, but the conclusion these
examples would support must only be a string to string them all along
with, those rattling little things.  sociology sometimes needs ten
examples where the same point made in philosophy would require none or
only one.  

and it's this i'm getting from this text too, like it's too
something-like-empirical and what i need is structure or logic that
captures the distances mapped out by the examples.  maybe i'm trying too
hard to under-stand, when what i have to do is something else.  maybe i'm
looking too hard for necessity--"the text had to do this seemingly
irrational thing because of this or that subtlety in its position"--and
it's this i'm caught in.  i always get in crap for "bringing in lacan".  
but i feel like i need a rope to hold on to when i descend into this cave,
or a light to shine at the walls; it's not that i can't let go of the
rope, it's just that when i do, i have nothing to say.  i want a logic of
the paradoxical pair, and for me lacan is the
best in paradoxical logic.  

amrcus.