File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2001/foucault.0107, message 38


From: "charmaine driscoll" <missplateau-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: if -- And-- Foucault love dolls
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:43:19 -0400


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Now Patrick that sounds like a very good notion. I never thought of that: A 
Foucault doll, and perhaps a Plato doll, and perhaps a Patrick to stick 
voodoo pins in. Where shall I pin them, in your ass' your testicles, your 
brains? Perhaps yes, your rules of enunciation might improve if I can find 
the right synapse.
On a more serious note you sound like an old 'new critic' who has not 
overcome the episteme of your own cynical and bored reproach. I am sure you 
cannot read Derrida, or Foucalt. Perhaps you would do better to take courses 
in Introduction to Lit. Crit. Then you'd realise the meaning of  what you 
are saying. God only knows, perhaps one day you might hazard a guess at what 
I am driving or others.


>From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby-AT-ieee.org>
>Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: if -- And
>Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:39:47 -0700
>


Regards,
C.Driscoll

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


>From owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:40:36 -0700
Received: from [128.143.2.9] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBD0B4067007240042A21808F02098F861; Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:40:08 -0700
Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa01800;
          3 Jul 2001 12:40 EDT
Received: (from domo-AT-localhost)
	by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) id MAA21553
	for foucault-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:39:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to owner-foucault-AT-localhost using -f
Received: from mailhostmax.hostmax.net (mail.sysmatrix.net [65.68.155.128])
	by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA21549
	for <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:39:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ieee.org ([63.175.32.32]) by mailhostmax.hostmax.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-39387U2500L250S0)
          with ESMTP id net for <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>;
          Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:41:33 -0500
Message-ID: <3B41F553.1020508-AT-ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:39:47 -0700
From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby-AT-ieee.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i586; en-US; 0.8.1) Gecko/20010515
X-Accept-Language: en
To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: if -- And
References: <F271xPDh5vNpqY1Yf1U00014e5c-AT-hotmail.com> <DAV42p7pD5kKCw5zQQS00001929-AT-hotmail.com>

HTML VERSION:

Sender: owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently. In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better than I can!"
Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while, but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness.


Glen Fuller wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:
If we are to say that sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist's
background) does not matter, then what we are saying is that what that
theorist is 'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by the
aforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a theorist's
background)? Yes?
I can imagine some of you are about ready to crucify me with my implicit
suggestion that it is important we know what the sexual preference is of a
theorist so as to fully understand his/her work...
No, that is not what I am saying, not really...
If we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a theorist's
background) then we are assuming that what is being communicated (and how we
are listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probably
is... but how do we know?
We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (to
the listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?
And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected by
his/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicit
suggestion there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by the
relative speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing within
the social that is...
Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of a
theorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that what
is being communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.
Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base much
theoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised IS
sexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with every
word uttered...
What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal details of theorists
may affect and effec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding of
the what they are trying to communicate.
E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they stopped their schooling
in the third grade.
And THAT is the essential point I am trying to make, we should judge the
theorist's work, not the theorist, but to judge his/her work requires
knowledge of the social trajectory of the speaker as well.

yep,
Glen Fuller.



----- Original Message -----
From: "charmaine driscoll" <missplateau-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Cc: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And


Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated this
project. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous Men;
his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, and
naturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was homosexual
makes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.



From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby-AT-ieee.org>
Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand the
differences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,
one needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. And
whether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked to
be in the middle position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand  "The
Order of Things."  Of course! Why didn't I think of that?

Regards,
C.Driscoll

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005