Mike Geary wrote: >> Rumsfeld had it mostly right: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." I would add: There are known unknowables. These include just about everything meaningful to you. And there are unknown knowables, these are the very raison d'etre of the sciences. << Didn't Rumsfeld forget the unknown knowns, or the things that we don't know that we know, aka ideology? I must not know that I know that the definition of the abject is shifting and subject to contestation, or else it would loose its efficiacy as an object of fixation against which it may be possible to construct society. Isn't it precisely when the subject makes the realization that the locus of abjection is arbitrary that the ground shifts under his/her feet and the the contingent character of society appears as a site of struggle? Best, Torgeir Fjeld Moss, Norway -- _______________________________________________ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html