[Reader-list] Report on South Asia seminar curtain raiser - 21 February, 2006]

[kranenbu at xs4all.nl]

Jeebesh,

A quick reply, but this deserves a better one. Just intuitively now. Yes
this is the very point, there is very little essence left, very little
'centre', in fact I think we - by our very notions and discourse of
opposition (strategy/tactics) still uphold the now empty centre itself. It
- raw violent power - only exists because we believe somehow it has either
a transcendent or a viable real claim to backing up power, whereas all our
systems are telling us al the time they cannot function without our
invested embodied interest, somehow we keep believing that for the
political systems we are born to this is not the case. But it is. The
trouble is we have no good organizers no more with a clear view on
structural change,

Greetings from unsunny chilly Amsterdam, Rob.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Jeebesh Bagchi wrote:

> Then why is `power` intimated by it.?
> What does this has to say about the nature of power itself?
>
> Is it too besieged, uncertain and weak that a `faint` voice can
> destabilize it from it's pedestal.? What would this account of power
> mean in terms of practices of `counter-publics`?