Alpha males Cutting noses and spiteing faces

[rj]

> At times, an interesting and perhaps important thread
> decays, decomposes
> and spontaneously combusts. Not wanting to fan the flames
> and singe our
> brows we take a deep breath, appeal to reason, plead with
> the pyromaniacs,
> piss on the embers, hand out white nose rags, cut the
> throats of fatted
> goats and await the intervention of the gray-eyed goddess.

Though Terrance's sentiments are undoubtedly noble I think that this
sort of avuncular reprimand is somewhat melodramatic and unnecessary. I
haven't done a head count but I don't think there have been any
casualties so far. And, if there had been, who would be so bold as to
attribute the cause to this or that spirited polemic, this or that
tangential thread, this or that piece of ribaldry or banter? Is Terrance
saying people are 'scared' to contribute ideas to the discussion? This
would seem to be their problem. And, appeals to reason won't always get
you to where you want to go around here either, not with Mr Wyrmie
about, slicing and dicing. The instrinsic phallocentrism of Terrance's
prognosis is quite unpleasant, as also is the Olympian vantage he
presumes for himself, but the bowdlerisation of classical myth is quite
fun and effective in its way.

What I like about the dynamics of cyberdiscussion at its best is that
reading and interpretation become a truly collaborative process.
Participants contribute new knowledge and insight, and act as a sounding
board for same. There's time for reflection built in, which is something
you wouldn't get at a weekly seminar-style reading group. And, it's not
so in-your-face. There's no pressure, no onus to contribute. When
interest or insight wanes so the thread will peter out, or be
transformed. This venue's virtually ideal.

What I don't like is when some individual (or nation) sets him or her
(or it) self up as autarch, dropping their scatterbombs and more
insidious forms of rhetoric with pinpoint precision and then stepping
back with all innocent bemusement and saying, "Oops, I had an old street
directory. Sorry. Honest mistake." It's this whole thing of
possession/ownership/might is right which is at the centre of capitalist
democracy, and which extends to the cultural realm as well. The
traditional critical lexicons are all wrapped up in the exclusivist
mentality and demagoguery of the Western imperial regime in the way that
they aspire to "possess" the one and true meaning of a cultural
artefact. "Bow down now. We *must* read like this ... "

Sometimes such intolerance and supremacist assumptions are just an
honest error, but ignorance has always been a poor defence in my book.

Terrance would have us stop our voices in order that our voices can be
heard. But whose voices? This is a copout:

> The danger of
> misinterpretation
> is greatest, of course, among speakers who actually speak
> different native
> tongues, or come from different cultural backgrounds and
> since we are a global
> bunch we need to keep this in mind.

Such misunderstandings can in fact always be quickly and painlessly
clarified. A simple note or three. Further, what is the ideal state
towards which Terrance's brand of censorship and temperance inclines
itself?

> A perfectly tuned
> discussion is a vision of sanity--a ratification of one's
> way of being human and one's place in the world. 

A "Brave New World" order, in fact.

There's a phrase that you Americans have about "speaking truth to
power". I think it's what Pynchon does in his literature. I don't like
it when one individual takes it upon him or herself to talk down to
others, as both Terrance and Max have done, and I'm going to make a
point of registering it when I think that that's what's happening here.
Fair warning. Strike up the posse if you will.

rj, naming names