Re: [microsound] adorno essays

[billashline@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Aaron Ximm wrote:

>However, I also stand by my misreading ~ use of all caps is a hallmark of
>hyperbole in online discourse, 
>
hyperbole or emphasis?  You'll note that I didn't use "all caps".  I 
capped one word only.  There was no exaggeration in my statement.

>Disclosure: I have a well incubated wariness of totalizing ideologies (or
>if you're an Adorno fan, anti-idealogies) of any kind.  Specifically, of
>contentions implicit or explicit that objects (read also: signs, gestures,
>or utterances) are primarily, let alone exclusively, political (read also:
>economic, social, psychological, or 'cultural') vectors or constructs.
>

I never said that objects, aesthetic or otherwise were "primarily" or 
"exclusively" political.  But I would say that they are always already 
political, which isn't to always foreground that point when talking 
about such objects but also not to neglect it either.  If you have such 
a "wariness" about Adorno's cultural criticism, then situate yourself. 
 What investments do you have that encourage such wariness?  I'm equally 
wary about people who think they can have their aesthetic pleasures 
without recourse to social politics.  I always want to know what 
privileges they enjoy that allow this kind of response.  Call it a 
well-incubated hatred of the rich--not to suggest that you are

>But words like EVERYTHING alarm me: they make me think of the sendero
>luminoso and the red guard, and the race to raze modernism.
>
Your metonymic capacities appear to be running on overdrive.  Watch the 
locution:  I said "having everything to do with" something.  There's a 
big difference between saying something is decidedly relevant and saying 
it's the only relevant deciding thing.

>OK ~ but I'm still wary of 'exteme,' finding it lexically too close to
>extremism.
>
Lexically, yes.  Metonymically--only if you're prone to catastrophic 
nightmares.

>  
>

------------------------------