Dear Carrol,

There are degrees that your episteme ignores. I can reply at length or  
briefly, have all the leg taken off or only some of it.

It's far more accurate to see differences rather than oppositions.

What is lost by thinking of choices as different options instead of  
binary alternatives? That seems to limit rather than increase your  
choices.

Linguistic syntax as Jameson noted imprisons thought because of what  
it cannot enunciate, unless we can imagine outside of it.

Diana
Sent from my iPod

On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Diana Manister wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ken,
>>
>> Either/or, like all binaries, depend on totalizing each element.
>
> Yoou are hanging by your fingertips to a conveyer belt, dangling  
> over an
> abyss. Either you hang on or you die.
>
> Actuality continually presents us with naked alternatives. Either
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> you look down here to see what follows or you don't read this line.
>
>
> Either you repond to this post or you don't respond to this post.
>
> Your leg is gangrenous: either you have it amputateed or you die.
>
> You come to a fork in a road. Either you continue or you go back. If  
> you
> continue you take either the elft or the right fork.
>
> Only in discourse are there always multiple versions. Which is why  
> naive
> conceptions of the role of discourse fail even to understand  
> discoruse.
>
> The Eleventh Theis is not an ethical injunction that we _should)  
> change
> the world. It is an epistemological claim, that we can interpret the
> world only within the effort to change it.
>
> Carrol
>