From: "Arianna" <a.bove-AT-wanadoo.fr>
Subject: RE: if -- Anyone understood the History of Sexuality
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:56:14 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Today it is sex that serves as a support for the ancient form -so familiar
and important in the West- of preaching.

any unpastoralised readers on this list please speak up or I'll follow
Patrick.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Patrick
Crosby
  Sent: 03 July 2001 18:40
  To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Subject: Re: if -- And


  Glen,
  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'sbackground) does not matter,
then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is 'communicating' (and
how we 'listening') is unaffected by theaforementioned sexual preference
(or, again, any facet of a theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of
you are about ready to crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is
important we know what the sexual preference is of atheorist 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'sbackground) then we are assuming that what is being communicated
(and how weare listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it
probablyis... but how do we know?We have made
a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (tothe
listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?And if we
are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected byhis/her
sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicitsuggestion
there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by therelative
speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social
that is...Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of
atheorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that
whatis being communicated is outside of the social, and that is
impossible.Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I
base muchtheoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised
ISsexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with
everyword uttered...What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal
 details of theoristsmay affect and effec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are
trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they
stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential point I
am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the theorist, but
to judge his/her work requiresknowledge 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 AMSubject: Re: if -- And
Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated
thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous
Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere,
andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was
homosexualmakes 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 thedifferences
in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one needs to understand
that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. Andwhether Foucault was a
top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle position of a 3-way just
naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand  "TheOrder 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

HTML VERSION:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Patrick Crosby
Sent: 03 July 2001 18:40
To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: if -- And

Glen,
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