Dont distort what I am saying. This pomo rhetoric of yours is just a
feeble way of showing support for you Diane "friend". Let her fight
her own battles. Obviously like me you dont think she can. How much
is she hiring your for dearie?
Furthermore it is your Diane that introduced "fantasy" into the
argument not me. I was merely exposiong the absurdity of her
commnets. You are pointing your armalite in the wrong
direction dearie. You ought study the context of my post before
uttering your string of yuppie pomo cliches. Your fingers seem to move
faster than your brain. Perhaps you ought to read or reread
Gullliver's Travels to get an idea as to how ridiculous your
Incidentally it would be interesting to turn your comments on Daine's
comments into electronic bytes for the benefit of this List
This is just a preliminary riposte. I may respond to you at greater
length. However I am not sure yet whether I will. I want to first see
will Ms "nods vigorusly" respond first.
Philosopher not for hire,
> Although I don't have time to comment on this whole exchange, I do
> feel that I should point out that pace Butler, Foucault, Deleuze,
> the nonessential nonmateriality of the body is by no means equal to
> it being 'just a fantasy.' Stating 'there is no "reality" that is
> not the fantasy of a certain system' is not a statement that can be
> usefully applied to, at least, Deleuze and Foucault, who consistently
> have worked to destabilize the ideology/reality, fantasy/reality,
> mind/body type dualisms with the analysis of the multiple
> materialities of power.
> To be more specific, your final example of the ideological cold (a
> rhetorical rhinovirus, indeed) implicitly still presumes a
> fantasy/reality distinction--you attempt to place the Butlerian
> position into a Frankfurt-style system/realtiy dichotomy, framing it
> in a colonial discourse where the substrate 'body' is
> overlaid/infected/whatever by the ideological 'cold.' Again, this is
> the wrong brush to be tarring Butler/Foucault/Deleuze with, as this
> is not their argument, *especially* when you take the sort of
> subjectivist voluntaristic position that the cold can be seen to be a
> fantasy of *mine* and not a shared social reality.
> And I'd like to if possible bring the rhetorical level down a few
> notches. There's a truism on the Internet that trotting out the
> Holocaust/Hitler/Nazis during a discussion is an instant discourse-stopper, a
> 'trump' that tends to render discussion moot. Rather than continuing
> to be a discussion over concepts, discussion tends to get sidetracked
> into arguing over the value of the Holocaust/Hitler/Nazi example and
> whether or not it really applies, etc.
> E.M. Connor Durflinger Philosopher for Hire
> "Have Forestructures, Will Travel"
> Reverend, Universal Life Church
> bc05319@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx PIC Program at B.U.
> inspiration STATION: