From: "Joanna L. Crosby" <jcrosby@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:28:21 -0400 (EDT)
While I have the suspicion that I am only opening myself up
to be Mr Carlile's new target, I thought I might make a
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Karl Carlile wrote:
> It was not I who
> introduced fantasy into the argument but Diane, the person to whom I
> was replying.
> > 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.
If I am not mistaken, Diane wrote this in response to 'Karl' after
his bit about the car accident and the cold, not before. If I
remember correctly, Karl seemed to assume that if there is no
objective reality, in the sense meant by modern and enlightenment
thought, then the only other option is a world of fantasy.
I have found most interesting Foucault's work challenging what
we mean by the concepts 'true' and 'truth', and the implication
of this challenge for what is 'real'. _The Order of Things_
seems to be pointing out the way in which what is real has been
interpreted at different times, according to different priorities
and perspectives. Just as in physics where incompatible theories
coexist at different levels of phenomena (atomic vs. subatomic),
I think that in philosophy, we have incompatible theories, which,
within their own realms adequately describe a limited set of
phenomena. This does not mean that there is only one reality, but many
The question of interpretation and mediation is very interesting,
if you accept the premise that when we sense and interpret that sense,
we are automatically distanced from what we are sensing. Interpretation
is always subject to the emphasis of one nuance over another. The
interesting question I find Foucault asking is why this is so.
> Again you are attributing views to me which I do not have. It was Diane
> that offered these views. Why don't you challenge her?
I don't challenge Diane because, at least on this point, I agree
with her. I find that 'Karl' is guilty of some of the same things
he has accused other of on this list, and I find that his presense
does not do anything to advance debate, but seems to be doing a
really good job of shutting it down. I don't appreciate his attempts
at disciplining this list to fit his expectations of it.
Morgan State University