|
Post by glowingwabbit on Oct 6, 2008 13:53:34 GMT -5
Can anyone help me write up some guidelines for this forum? Any suggestions?
These are the guidelines I have so far:
1) Don't join the group unless your serious about it (i.e. have the time to read the text, write and think about the text).
2) Lets keep a friendly and open atmosphere in our discussions. We are reading Deleuze, so I think it is appropriate to follow his understanding of friendship and philosophy.
3) "Don't post one-liners (like "I agree", "Well said", "You suck", etc)." - cedilla
4) "Whenever you make an interpretive statement, provide specific references (book or article, page, passage) to the text that your statement is based on." - cedilla
|
|
|
Post by cedilla on Oct 6, 2008 14:06:53 GMT -5
Some suggestions:
1. Don't post one-liners (like "I agree", "Well said", "You suck", etc).
2. Whenever you make an interpretive statement, provide specific references (book or article, page, passage) to the text that your statement is based on.
|
|
|
Post by whomoi on Oct 11, 2008 14:25:54 GMT -5
when don't have access to referred, even the text 'r-d' in-discussion ask others perhaps,some can help others, if they can, ...as a part-icipant without having and-or already read, the text, thinking to take part in it, whatever access of time and text accessible,...anyway if it is possible, the scheduled part to discuss could be shared in e-formt to that could facilitate a bit, keeping in mind other constraints of access like time and space-cyber...
|
|
|
Post by whomoi on Oct 12, 2008 4:00:47 GMT -5
Guiding thread: it bit w-t-h-ere, off- and on- some lines some way to be-come part of a cyber-spaces, would have been a little bit of ‘cyber’ in hetro- senses or rather ‘sensibilities’ and ‘intelligibilities’, even sheer non-sense, mark- that-mis-the-mark, it would have been produced, whatever it could, it works! Let it bit, some un-conventiontonal convections too, like, the citable citation that are not accessible as @e would have been mentioned, such as del. as Deleuze, d-r as title Difference and Repetition, p. x as page x, par.y as paragraph y, l. z-a for lines, except, emphases part would have been typed as you know it is too hard to type too much, so how much emphases there could be…e.g.: There is a great difference between writing history of philosophy and writing philosophy. In the one case, we study the arrows or the tools of a great thinker, the trophies and the prey, the continents discovered. In the other case, we trim our own arrows, or gather those which seem to us the finest in order to try to send them in other directions, even if the distance covered is not astronomical but relatively small. We try to speak in our own name only to learn that a proper name designates no more than the outcome of a body of work - in other words, the concepts discovered, on condition that we were able to express these and imbue them with life using all the possibilities of language. as del.r-d. p2.par1. ; some text It would like to bit together to bit some little bits ‘on’ R-D, like, Derreda, J.( 1988). Limited Inc. trans. Samuel weber, Evanston, Il: Northwestren University Press Zizek, S. (2004). Organs without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequence. New York and London: Routledge So let you look at it bits ‘nuts’ w-t-h-ere, it work ’ ’, as if, access of times and spaces out w-t-h-ere, in ‘uncertain times,’ or rather ‘the untimely:’, bits that bits cyber…whenever, wherever, however, whatever, whoever can some-way w-t-h-ere…and-or any ‘mis’- would be debatable ahimsly, even if, some-way problématique of ‘debate’ and ‘encounter’ yet-to-be-come-a-part-thread of the ‘preface’ @topics@posts-and-or-comments@notes ‘on-line’@ ‘Difference and Repetition Reading Group :: Home,’ let it bit some other bits other times… ‘from elsewhere.’…
|
|