Can anyone tell me how to have my name taken off of this mailing list?

At 11:35 AM 10/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>        Sigh.  I was so hoping for a theory of alien invasion or at least a
>rewriting of _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ as a dream snatching story.
>
>>>In a message dated 10/26/98 8:26:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>>>[log in to unmask] writes:<snip>
>
>>In a message dated 10/26/98 Fred Welfare <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>>Your notions of self as divided remind of anti-psychiatry, a movement
>headed >up by Laing and Szasz.  I wouldn't discount their views either.
>
>        Good!...? S is certainly critical of psychiatry's frequent
>uncritical complicity with normativity.
>
>>I am >referring to an 'explanation' of communication which recognizes not
>merely the >signifier-signified relationship for any meaningful entity we
>experience, >which could, hypothetically, occur internally, that is, between
>split off >fragments of selves of the same selfand of other selves; but
>also, the >existence of a designator, an other, which designates the
signifiers.
>
>        I've already posted my thoughts on self and selves. Your
>"designator" seems to approximate what is, in my vernacular, the Master: the
>set of internalized interdictions, proscriptions and also prescriptions--
>social norms, put simply; less simply put, the network of deflected desires
>or "sublimations" that manage (and disguise) accession to the Law.  The
>designator designates a plausible field of action, "plausible" understood as
>a negation or repression, in that it includes only the recognizeable,
>readable, normative (this is what makes it plausible!).  The
>designator/Master outlines a normative field, a realm of the possible and
>thus plausible.
>
>>Otherwise, you have reduced meaning to its semantic-syntactic relations and
>>obscured the pragmatic dimension.
>
>        If one were to insist that a linquistic paradigm be made to model
>inter- or intrasubjective relations, I would agree with you.  I don't so
>insist, so I don't agree with the attribution.  But how else might one
>access a pragmantic dimension except through the matter of representation?
>This question sustains a loyalty to the linguistic model, but broadens it to
>recognize the social effectivity-- the materilaity-- of representations.
>