This is the most recent letter that was responded to by a mailbomb
blitz
> From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:05:34 +0000
> Subject: JOANNA AND NEANDERTHAL BEINGS
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Joanna: Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has
> been irrevocably blurred with the objective.
>
> Karl:To say that "the subjective has been irrevocably blurred by the
> objective" suggests that there was a time when the subjective was not
> blurred by the objective. If this is true then it needs to be
> explained why or how this happend? If there existed a radical divorce
> between subject and object why and how did the subjective become
> irrevocably blurred by the object? And if it became blurred by the
> other why is "the poor unfortunate" subjective now <irrevocably>
> blurred by the objective? If at one point there was a divorce why then
> can there not be a return to this condition?
>
> Even the language used by you is questionable: "blurred". What does
> this mean?
>
> Joanna: I think Adorno said as much in an essay entitled 'Subject,
> Object'. A very intersting source on a socially constructed
> objectivity is Helen Longino. In her book, _Science as Social
> Knowledge_, she shows in a very rigorious way how objectivity can
> incorporate a great deal of subjectivity, and still come up with lots
> of facts.
>
> Karl: Does she? How wonderful. Aren't you the clever boots to have
> spotted this?
>
> Joanna: This, however, is a very different objectivity than the one
> demanding a god's eye point of view, one that refuses to see how the
> observer can influence what is observed.
>
> Karl: But your very initial observation is "a god's eye point of
> view": "Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has
> been irrevocably blurred with the objective." You are being
> metaphysical in making this transendental statement concerning the
> state of being or reality or whatever you want to call it. (Some
> might use cetian longwinded postmodernist shibboleths to try to
> describe it. Occam's razor is not fashionable in Gulliver's Laputa
> List).
>
> Joannna: While I think that Longino bases her reading of Foucault too
> much on what Dreyfus and Rabinow have to say, he project seems to be
> very friendly to his kind of critique.
>
> Karl: So what!
>
> Joanna: Just trying to stay on the topic and avoid those pesky
> ad hominem attacks, as 'Karl' has so patiently advised.
>
> Karl: Perhaps you ought to stick to the latter since it merely
> requires neanderthal intellectual skills.
>
>
> Crypto racists on this List beware!
>
> 'TIS ME Karl Carlile
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
Yours etc.,
Karl
blitz
> From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:05:34 +0000
> Subject: JOANNA AND NEANDERTHAL BEINGS
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Joanna: Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has
> been irrevocably blurred with the objective.
>
> Karl:To say that "the subjective has been irrevocably blurred by the
> objective" suggests that there was a time when the subjective was not
> blurred by the objective. If this is true then it needs to be
> explained why or how this happend? If there existed a radical divorce
> between subject and object why and how did the subjective become
> irrevocably blurred by the object? And if it became blurred by the
> other why is "the poor unfortunate" subjective now <irrevocably>
> blurred by the objective? If at one point there was a divorce why then
> can there not be a return to this condition?
>
> Even the language used by you is questionable: "blurred". What does
> this mean?
>
> Joanna: I think Adorno said as much in an essay entitled 'Subject,
> Object'. A very intersting source on a socially constructed
> objectivity is Helen Longino. In her book, _Science as Social
> Knowledge_, she shows in a very rigorious way how objectivity can
> incorporate a great deal of subjectivity, and still come up with lots
> of facts.
>
> Karl: Does she? How wonderful. Aren't you the clever boots to have
> spotted this?
>
> Joanna: This, however, is a very different objectivity than the one
> demanding a god's eye point of view, one that refuses to see how the
> observer can influence what is observed.
>
> Karl: But your very initial observation is "a god's eye point of
> view": "Part of the problem, indeed, may be that the subjective has
> been irrevocably blurred with the objective." You are being
> metaphysical in making this transendental statement concerning the
> state of being or reality or whatever you want to call it. (Some
> might use cetian longwinded postmodernist shibboleths to try to
> describe it. Occam's razor is not fashionable in Gulliver's Laputa
> List).
>
> Joannna: While I think that Longino bases her reading of Foucault too
> much on what Dreyfus and Rabinow have to say, he project seems to be
> very friendly to his kind of critique.
>
> Karl: So what!
>
> Joanna: Just trying to stay on the topic and avoid those pesky
> ad hominem attacks, as 'Karl' has so patiently advised.
>
> Karl: Perhaps you ought to stick to the latter since it merely
> requires neanderthal intellectual skills.
>
>
> Crypto racists on this List beware!
>
> 'TIS ME Karl Carlile
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours etc.,
> Karl
>
>
>
Yours etc.,
Karl