explanation part 2

[KXX4493553 at aol.com]

In einer eMail vom 07.06.00 17:17:51 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt 
christinekaratnytsky at juno.com:

<< 
 > I would say that GR IS NOT a technocratic text, but it describes a
 technocratic world... this is an >important difference.
 
 I don't necessarily disagree, but could you elaborate a bit, please?
  >>
I give you the answer that I wrote to Doug in a private PM yesterday: 

>I think technocracy is one-dimensional (in the sense how Herbert Marcuse 
>wrote about it in his critics of Anglosaxon empirism and language theory à 
la >Searle and others) but GR is about the paradoxes of the occidental 
"episteme" >(Foucault).

Should literature offer an alternative? I don't think so. Perhaps Pynchon 
offers us a "schizophrenic speach" and "onomatopoetica" as an alternative, 
like Deleuze/Guattari in "Anti-Oedipus" on a theoretical level. But is this 
an alternative??????
kwp