Meta-mail

[MantaRay at aol.com]

Drew:

>> >meta-opposition between opposition
>> >>and non-opposition
>
>To oppose or not to oppose, that is the question. i.e. there are two
>alternative and opposite ways of dealing with opposition making this a
>meta-opposition. 

How infinitely regressive. Doesn't the revelation of this binarism (to oppose
or not to oppose) undermine catgorizing it as a meta-opposition? Too circular
for me. Once we establish something as being confined to a simplisitic
oppositional relationship, it kind of does away with the need for a
discussion of meta-oppositions. In either case, "meta-opposition" itself
would suffice, since it implies an oppositional thinking of oppositions;
 "meta-opposition between opposition and non-opposition" would see to be
redundant, would it not?

MantaRay, thinking out loud