Re: recognition/ethics

Melissa, sorry I snapped at you, especially since I actually thought 
your post was excellent.  Peace?  Walk along river?

What irritated me (lemme try to say this): it seems to me that the 
consciousness of D&G challenging this or that established notion looms 
too large in our discussions.  So that because of my pitifully
small familiarity with D&G it is assumed that, since I haven't read
them, my current notions must be the "established" ones -- I am in
some default "prechallenged" state.  But the truth is, I am as
unfamiliar with the "established" notions as I am with D&G; partly
because I find most Western philosophy unreadable and unusable.
What I find beautiful about D&G is, if I may say so, their _accuracy_;
precisely the fact that they go from the _encounter_ rather than from
some set of "first principles".  So for me, the assumption that when I
fumble to articulate something, then if it is not in dandgian language
it must be this "other" stuff, just creates a permanent condition of
derailing.  For instance, are we still in the state in which Steve
will try to explain "logics", or have we now been derailed by this
explanatory tiff?  

On another note, I think the statement at the end of your post:

> Rather than the past determining the conditions of the
> encounter, it is the encounter itself which determines the sense of the
> conditions.

is a very good formulation of the difference between the two modes
of theorizing that Steve talked about: the difference is in whether one
positions the theory so that it determines the conditions of the encounter, 
or lets the encounter do the determining.  I think we are back to
notions of "home" and "opening the circle".


- malgosia 

     ------------------