From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph-AT-indigo.ie> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:29:10 +0000 Subject: Re: JOANNA AND NEANDERTHAL BEINGS This is the most recent letter that was responded to by a mailbomb blitz > From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph-AT-indigo.ie> > To: foucault-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:05:34 +0000 > Subject: JOANNA AND NEANDERTHAL BEINGS > Reply-to: foucault-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU > > Joanna: Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has > been irrevocably blurred with the objective. > > Karl:To say that "the subjective has been irrevocably blurred by the > objective" suggests that there was a time when the subjective was not > blurred by the objective. If this is true then it needs to be > explained why or how this happend? If there existed a radical divorce > between subject and object why and how did the subjective become > irrevocably blurred by the object? And if it became blurred by the > other why is "the poor unfortunate" subjective now <irrevocably> > blurred by the objective? If at one point there was a divorce why then > can there not be a return to this condition? > > Even the language used by you is questionable: "blurred". What does > this mean? > > Joanna: I think Adorno said as much in an essay entitled 'Subject, > Object'. A very intersting source on a socially constructed > objectivity is Helen Longino. In her book, _Science as Social > Knowledge_, she shows in a very rigorious way how objectivity can > incorporate a great deal of subjectivity, and still come up with lots > of facts. > > Karl: Does she? How wonderful. Aren't you the clever boots to have > spotted this? > > Joanna: This, however, is a very different objectivity than the one > demanding a god's eye point of view, one that refuses to see how the > observer can influence what is observed. > > Karl: But your very initial observation is "a god's eye point of > view": "Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has > been irrevocably blurred with the objective." You are being > metaphysical in making this transendental statement concerning the > state of being or reality or whatever you want to call it. (Some > might use cetian longwinded postmodernist shibboleths to try to > describe it. Occam's razor is not fashionable in Gulliver's Laputa > List). > > Joannna: While I think that Longino bases her reading of Foucault too > much on what Dreyfus and Rabinow have to say, he project seems to be > very friendly to his kind of critique. > > Karl: So what! > > Joanna: Just trying to stay on the topic and avoid those pesky > ad hominem attacks, as 'Karl' has so patiently advised. > > Karl: Perhaps you ought to stick to the latter since it merely > requires neanderthal intellectual skills. > > > Crypto racists on this List beware! > > 'TIS ME Karl Carlile > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours etc., > Karl > > > Yours etc., Karl
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005