[D-G] sex appeal pf the inorganic

[Gondo -Minnie]

its more interesting if we should talk inside of instrumental practices, and relate
philosophy from its not overallness. for r example i talked with my teacher about, for example, talk deleuze and guattari into the actor course. my teacher used the english prononciation of deluze which made everybody laugh. no, or yes, can you use deluze and guattari notions of bwo to describe the momentum of the actor (the beats which interest the actor), i think it would be interesting to philosophize not in the generality, but in specs, being specific about what we are doing, why do we need philosophy to be moulded in such or such a way, were we to communicate by philosophys usage. like you did when saying you were lonely etc. what use. likely i could talk about why i find pertinent to do a thing, by explaining what am i doing with my thing. it is a way of getting together, and making internet less automatizing, but lively. but always to come back and explain the territory or the frame which is ours. i think its boring when the philosopher is talking as a philosopher, it treats
 the reader as childs, its oedipianizing us i think. let them talk, why to write book. sigh.


> later on would like to read the societe du spectacle
> debord for more because i am in it. 

We are all 'in it', regardless of any instrumental
practice.. 
Mark Crosby
> wrote:
> 
		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail