Should I read the complex Original Text below like:
1. ... Spiral Jetty enacts a symbolic ritual allowing temporary sway to the death drive through a) oscillating between the ecstatic moments of the site where perception is dedifferentiated and through b) the rubble of the nonsite exhibited in the gallery characterising the more stable moments of this ebb and flow.
or
2. ... Spiral Jetty enacts a symbolic ritual allowing temporary sway to the death drive through oscillating between a) the ecstatic moments of the site where perception is dedifferentiated and b) the rubble of the nonsite exhibited in the gallery characterising the more stable moments of this ebb and flow.
Original Text:
Iversen echoes this when she says that Spiral Jetty ‘enacts a symbolic ritual allowing temporary sway to the death drive’, oscillating between the ecstatic moments of the site where perception is dedifferentiated – ‘perception was heaving, the stomach turning...I had the red heaves as the sun vomited its corpuscular radiation’ – with the rubble of the nonsite exhibited in the gallery characterising the more stable moments of this ebb and flow. (The nonsite refers to the photographs and gridded formations of rocks Smithson exhibited in the gallery.)
Yeah, the writer screwed that up. Nobody thinks they need an editor. You need at least two things to oscillate between, and you can't oscillate between one thing and "with" the other.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Yeah, the writer screwed that up. Nobody thinks they need an editor. You need at least two things to oscillate between, and you can't oscillate between one thing and "with" the other. She meant that you had the ecsatic moments on the one hand contrasting with the static rubble on the other. There is also something wrong with the quotation marks, but I'm guessing that's you.