File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1996/f_Jan24.96, message 1


From: Colin Dey <C.R.DEY-AT-dundee.ac.uk>
Date:          Wed, 24 Jan 1996 01:44:40 GMT
Subject:       Re: In defence of humans


On 23 Jan 96 at 15:38, tomdill-AT-womenscol.stephens.ed wrote:

> I think the problem is... possibly a conflict between those who
> assume a discourse is possible and the couple who seem to want to 
> transform the list... with one announcing a simple dichotomy and demanding an instant
> choice, then announcing in bullying tones that the choice is 
> WRONG, then ridiculing the "children" for failing to agree.  How
> easy it is on these lists for a shouting anti-intellect to 
> derail discussion.  Tom Dillingham

Tom, I do believe a discourse is possible. I have to - I am working 
on new forms of (accounting) discourse. And I think the discussion 
on this list is generally very good indeed, if a little long-winded and verbose. 
All I have tried to do is offer you intellectual thought from outside the ivory 
towers of academia, which seems to have failed disastrously. I wonder 
why...?

But I admit, I do not like to be serious about philosophy all the time, 
just in case I disappear up my own arsehole! 
The need to be pragmatic at least some of the time helps, I feel.
My "demand" for an "instant" choice was crude, because it was 
tongue in cheek.  I am sorry that you do not appreciate my attempt to cock 
a snook at the Cybertheorists deluding themselves through discourse. 
I thought it made an important point actually. Never mind though.  I 
certainly didn't intend to ridicule the people contributing to the list.

You may not believe it but I am as concerned as you about the 
discussion. If I may make a suggestion, why don't you offer us all a 
constructive contribution? 

cheers now,

Colin.



     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005