discourse science and spectacle

[ugo volli]

At 18.41 23/04/99 -0600, you wrote:
>ugo,
>
>{lease define the discourse science which does not allow for hegemonic
>critique?  My work on discouse comes from a more critical amd postmodern
>theory of discourse. I intended it as a commont on Debord (1967) Society of
>the Spectacle.  I did not mean it to be a spam to you. I did find Celso'
>hegemonic reading of the text very interesting science work. Perhaps our
>definitions of discourse science are not the same.
>
>Anyway, have a terrific day.
>
>david
>
>

Dear David,
every communication is a discours, and everything that matters is
communicated. So everything can be considered as a discours. But, from a
pragmatic point of view,a list about averything does not work.
Therefor, I believe, we have to limit ourself to our main item. Speaking
here about whatever relevant item simply does not work. If you wont to
discuss Amerciacn politics or society, you will easily find proper space on
the internet.
That's my opinion. Maybe I am wrong and the main purpose of this list is
considering the sociology of violence and war. In that case, you have to
speak and I have to look for another place for linguistic/methodologic
information. Just let me know.

ugo

PS. By the way, I am happy to live in a country as Italy, where peaplo is
not allowed in general to carry guns and where death penality was abolished
50 years ago...