From: "Nathan Goralnik" <rhizome85-AT-home.com>
Subject: Re: if -- And
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:05:53 -0700


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Patrick

    Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author and the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever seriously philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you really expect me to believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been written just as easily by a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? Do you really expect me to believe that Julia Kristeva has never been depressed? Blindly getting rid of the author sounds *hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective" inquiry. You seem to be too ready to efface the question of standpoint and thus seriously complicate critique.

Nate
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Patrick Crosby
  To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
  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 eff!
ec!
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: Patrick Crosby

To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM

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 eff!
ec!
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