> what if freedom is a death drive - do you go for it or not? > and you better not be bound by your answer, nor the question >
A very interesting neither.. ;) imho Perhaps that is one of the challenges and a critique of Objects. How do we talk, exchange, attempt communication while referring to processes, as on-going non-stuff noon-objects and disunited? (eg freedom, despite the term and, being a process with unbinding referential meaning, perhaps in-spite of the term - is not a thing, un-encapsulatablem, un-sellable, etc. - as to the crying out cost of their lives so many people in, for example, Iraq & Afghanistan find out, including within the invading armies..) All the best! Aharon xx > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM, manik <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... MANIK DON'T THINK THAT ROB WANT ONLY HIS PERSONAL FREEDOM ... BUT >> WHAT >> IF *WE* NEUTRALIZE CORPORATE PEOPLE TO TAKE OUR FREEDOM, WE MAKE THEM >> NOT >> FREE ( TO DO WHAT THEY USE TO DO )?... IS ''NON - FREE'' STATE >> IMMANENT TO >> HUMAN RACE? ... MANIK ... FEBRUARY ... 2013 ... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
