| |
|
That is interesting, and I hesitate in case of offence, but I tend to feel that on Barbelith I need to take great care in trying to understand the position of the poster. In many ways I think of you, Deva, as a prime example of a poster who should be interpreted from a point of view rather than what I'd think of as face value.
It is indeed interesting, and not in the slightest offensive, but it's taken me a couple of weeks to work out a response. I attempt to - and probably fail most of the time - write and think in such a way that I take responsibility for the sorts of assumptions and background thinking I am using, which I hope does mean that "the position of the poster" needs to be taken into account: but I would also hope (and this is probably idealistic) that that position is not immediately psychologized into some sort of idea of an intending subject, but rather taken as itself an intervention into language games and conventions of interaction. Sort of like the difference between enonce and enonciation in film theory: I'm often less interested in arguing on the level of the statement and more interested in thinking about how the statement works in context to mark out the position from which the "I" or subject-effect speaks, taking away the assumption that there is an "I" prior to or outside of the enunciation. Part of my own investment in barbelith is that it is easier to do that sort of thing in text-only interactions which, ideally (for me), would create a particular weave of thinking in each thread (and across threads) rather than get bogged down in old-school agonistic conventions or trying to change the "mind" of someone which is presumed to be "behind" the text.
But this is kind of off the point, I just thought of it and thought it might be interesting. |
|
|
