Maybe+my+numbers+are+off.

"And though we might lament that others have this power with our language, consider the perils of not having that power of interruption and redirection with respect to others." (JB/SP/93)

」」







[[image:http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4069/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4069-2414.jpg caption="Stock Photo #4069-2414, China the cake of kings and emperors, cartoon against the Yellow Peril, 1898 engraving from French publication Le Petit Journal"]] =**China the cake of kings and emperors,** = =**cartoon against the Yellow Peril,** [???? WHAT IS "YELLOW PERIL" MEANING HERE?????] = =**1898 engraving from French publication Le Petit Journal** =







[|The Promising Ambivalence of the Norm]

=//My// bitch, my #1 nigga, JB:= The problem is not simply that, from a theoretical POV [one we encountered in Limited Inc a b c, CG], it make no sense to assume that intentions are always properly materialized in utterances, and utterances materialized in deeds, but that the insight into those sometimes disjunctive relations constitutes an **alternative view of the linguistic field of politics.** Does the assertion of a potential incommensurability between intention and utterance (not saying what one means), utterance and action (not doing what one says), and intention and action (not doing what one meant), threaten the very linguistic condition for political participation, or do such disjunctures produce the possibility for a politically consequential //re//negotiation of language that exploits the undetermined character of these relations? **Could the concept of universality become exposed to revision without the presumption of such a disjuncture?** /92