Karl Carlile wrote:
>
> D: If you fished the message out of your trash bin then I dont
> understand how you dont have a clue what the response is to since
> I includedin it the body of the relevant message of
> yours.
>
> So just read down through the message to get the context. As you
> must know, if you want to examine the general context to your own
> message then locate the Foucalult Page where the relavant archive
> is accessible
>
> I look forward to reading your reply to this message of mine that you
> did not even read but simply trashed.
>
> Karl
Err...karl, whoever you are, please don't be personally offended by the
fact that I've been trashin foucault/french fem/d&g/baudrillard/and
ACW-L messages for the last few weeks and that one of yours happened to
be one of them. I did mention that I'm busy as hell right now, no? And
yes, of course I know there are archives. But ya know, I've got to admit
that nothing in your post made me want to hop over there and sift
through them. I did indeed scroll down and see my message attached to
yours, though. Your message doesn't really click for me...even with the
context. Here's what you said:
>It is not possible to conceive or experience the human body
>independently of human reality. All reality is human.
>To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
>matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
>most serves an ideological function.
Bit terminology problem here. What do you mean "independent of human
reality"? And what do you mean "all reality is human"? How does this
relate to my comments about butler? I can't tell if we're agreeing or
disagreeing or talkinga bout something else all together.
Even if "all reality is human" (and who knows? The X-files makes me
wonder), that doesn't mean all humans call the same fantasy "reality."
Dig? The body is fantasmatically constructed across our own
interpretive/ideological grids and then made iterable. Butler is
suggesting that if there is something we can call the "matter" of the
body, it is always already mediated by language and/or interpretation.
We can't know anything called "pure" matter. Just as there is no
"reality" that is not the fantasy of a certain system or systems of
thought, understanding. Reality, as well as the body, is always mediated
by our own cognitive grids...by what is iterable, thinkable, knowable.
Butler never suggests that we might access the "body" as it's "natural"
self. She's saying quite the opposite.
ddd
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>
> D: If you fished the message out of your trash bin then I dont
> understand how you dont have a clue what the response is to since
> I includedin it the body of the relevant message of
> yours.
>
> So just read down through the message to get the context. As you
> must know, if you want to examine the general context to your own
> message then locate the Foucalult Page where the relavant archive
> is accessible
>
> I look forward to reading your reply to this message of mine that you
> did not even read but simply trashed.
>
> Karl
Err...karl, whoever you are, please don't be personally offended by the
fact that I've been trashin foucault/french fem/d&g/baudrillard/and
ACW-L messages for the last few weeks and that one of yours happened to
be one of them. I did mention that I'm busy as hell right now, no? And
yes, of course I know there are archives. But ya know, I've got to admit
that nothing in your post made me want to hop over there and sift
through them. I did indeed scroll down and see my message attached to
yours, though. Your message doesn't really click for me...even with the
context. Here's what you said:
>It is not possible to conceive or experience the human body
>independently of human reality. All reality is human.
>To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
>matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
>most serves an ideological function.
Bit terminology problem here. What do you mean "independent of human
reality"? And what do you mean "all reality is human"? How does this
relate to my comments about butler? I can't tell if we're agreeing or
disagreeing or talkinga bout something else all together.
Even if "all reality is human" (and who knows? The X-files makes me
wonder), that doesn't mean all humans call the same fantasy "reality."
Dig? The body is fantasmatically constructed across our own
interpretive/ideological grids and then made iterable. Butler is
suggesting that if there is something we can call the "matter" of the
body, it is always already mediated by language and/or interpretation.
We can't know anything called "pure" matter. Just as there is no
"reality" that is not the fantasy of a certain system or systems of
thought, understanding. Reality, as well as the body, is always mediated
by our own cognitive grids...by what is iterable, thinkable, knowable.
Butler never suggests that we might access the "body" as it's "natural"
self. She's saying quite the opposite.
ddd
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD