From: "celia güichal" <cguichal-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: if -- And Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:39:54 I agree with Erik´s comment, there is not only one way to read a text. I also beleive that sometimes authors make a text, a discourse, of their whole lives. Others surround their text and define it with a smaller circle, only as what is written. celia >From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms-AT-kabelfoon.nl> >Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: if -- And >Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:10:07 +0200 > >Everybody seems to think that there's only one way to read a text and >that there's only one true meaning which is there for everybody to graps >independend of the way you read it. This is a bit naieve. If you read >Plato as someone who's preoccupied with his sexual preferences, you get >something else then when you read him as a political activist. Another >matter is whether you want to honour Plato's intentions and read what he >wanted to communicate (in which case you just would have to know what he >thought his readers were familiar with) or whether you want to analyse >him (in which case his voice vanishes). > >Nathan Goralnik wrote: > >>Glen >> >>Ok, so what if sexual preference matters? I'm not sure where you're going >>with this. Perhaps it's relevant if we're critiquing a text (interrogating >>the conditions of its possibility) or studying sexual preference itself, >>but >>there doesn't really seem to be a reason why our use of a text has to in >>anyway be influenced by an understanding of its originative moment. >> >>....Bricolage.... >> >>Cheers :) >>Nate >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005