[D-G]grammar used by Pretzel

[Gondo -Minnie]

--- NZ <pretzelworld at gmail.com> wrote:
//////-------------/*/////////////
> In English, grammar is all we have left of thoth's
> rebus, we have
> specialized cases I - you - we - he - she - they -
> that is all we have
> in terms of perspectives standing on that giant
> tree. Looking at the
> words "are" and "is" and I cannot see any
> similarity, not even a
> single letter is the same, but knowing the grammar
> ("we are" vs "he
> is"), I can see they virtually mean the same thing
> actually, thanks to
> my calorie burning hypocampus. I know this
> internally and I can make
> up for all the inconsistancies that rhetorical
> grammar of the English
> provides.
> Also from Thoth, the grammar of time seems to be
> some kind of ultimate
> grammar, especially for capitalism, and PVirillio
> (that good catholic)
> enjoys embracing this line of reasoning. I enjoyed
> his semiotexte
> booklet on warfare and currently finishing his
> "landscape of events",
> but he is so skimpy. I would like to compare it to
> Rebecca Solnit's
> "Rivers of Shadows" ($5 at www.Strandbooks.com !)
> but there is no
> comparison. Besides communicating truely radical
> philosophical ideas
> about time, "Rivers of Shadows" is also an excellent
> history of the
> standardization of time (annihilation of time) and
> shows exactly how
> warfare was emplyed to make such a thing occur and
> how the war
> industry used academia to transform itself into
> Hollywood so it could
> maintain those rhetorical differends in the present
> day.  

To me I see Hollywood in a race with academia to be
winning the price of culture. Both are competitors of 
value. Yet it could not be possible to trace a clear
border that would define one competitor into one camp
and the other, in the other, as they are more like
general tendencies to which names Have been or are
given, in various ways. The tendency to use a certain
apparatus, recognizable through the works of art,
according to certain likelyhood, could be called
"Hollywood", and then they are called by this name. 

Virilio,  skimpy  "l'accident originel" one of the
book dealing with the museum of catastrophy he has
constructed last year. Yet, I aknowledge this book is
skimpysh, do you mean like not poetic??yet it's
valuable as, and I don't like to say what my thought s
are on the Internet, yet I think it could be
interesting to study this guy , to do some kind of
study of it here for example, instead than (or of)
studying Butler or Badiou. He is worthy of     
something he did. He alarmed me more than necessary,
yet I am content he did that, so I can relate to the
people to whom this book was addressed (general of US
defense I imagine for example he thought about when
writing). To relate means not to become tree, or even
not to share the same conveniances in ways of being,
yet rather, as to what you said there it is not that
"he is" and "we are" if i understood the passage, were
the same, but that their is a zone of uncertainty
where thinking can make up for new imagination of the
possibles. a different reality. which causes the body
to think "oh, this is alive aswell", in this case
Virilio


Lets also
> not forget that it is the war industry that has
> given us the internet
> as well.




		
___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com