RE: [-empyre-] Is Modernity our Antiquity? fugue:ForwardfromChristiane Paul

Perhaps it could simply be considered as subject to mutability.... or is this dependent upon a corporeal frame?

-----Original Message-----
>From: Christina McPhee <>
>Sent: Mar 11, 2006 6:20 PM
>To: soft_skinned_space <>
>Subject: RE: [-empyre-] Is Modernity our Antiquity? fugue:	ForwardfromChristiane Paul
>From: <>
>Date: March 11, 2006 5:30:42 PM PST
>To: <>
>Subject: RE: [-empyre-] Is Modernity our Antiquity? fugue:  
>ForwardfromChristiane Paul
>Simon wrote:
>I agree, Christiane, 'rupture'; but within/on the level plane field  
>of the
>current N-State is rupture a term of consistency or intensity, or  
>Rupture as term of consistency -- interesting question; rupture  
>suggests inconsistencies but perhaps we take the latter for granted  
>and understand rupture as continous fabric of contemporary existence  
>(that has a certain elasticity and moldability). This seems to  
>connect to Aliette's remark that topology can't be understood along  
>discrete time / space axes or states any more but
>is characterized by continuum and plasticity.
>Anything, including rupture, can have or be intensity.
>It might be difficult to understand rupture as entity since it always  
>implies inter-relationships rather than a particular and discrete unit.
>empyre forum

" ... the space between zero and one ... "
                 Walter Benjamin

        Los Angeles _ San Francisco

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.