>
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Eric Angel wrote:
>
> > To All:
> > Just wondering if there was anybody in this group. I joined over a week
ago,
> > and there have be no postings yet.
> >
> > Eric Angel
> > plato@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
> Heh, heh, at current count there are actually 530 people subbed to this
> here group. As such things go this is a somewhat fickle group and there
> are times when one might even characterize it as recalcitrant.
> Occasionally there is a spark of brilliance that crops up just long enough
> to kindle ones hopes that things might get interesting here, but for the
> most part these sparks quickly die and the l*st slides back into its usual
> torpor. I don't know what it is but there definitly seems to be a
> reluctance to engage the work itself and instead what you're apt to find
> are questions that would seek to reveal the true subject beneath the work
> -- Just _who_ is Foucault really? -- as if the work itself had never been
> read. Or another favorite, you will often find those who have no love for
> questions but rather would seek only answers, as if they were up against
> the limit of a deadline and hoping that the net would magically produce a
> paper for them. Or you might also run into an attempt to "humanize" the
> work, forcinf Foucault to divulge an ethics that we might find more
> palatable in our daily existence.
>
> I've often wondered if people shy from engaging the work out of fear,
> scared, as it were, by the prospect that this is a minor space where the
> copy right remains in doubt and the publishers accolades are not
> bestowed. Ah but you'll have to forgive me for I do seem to be whining.
>
> Flannon
>
You wouldn't happen to belong to the Nietzsche group too? The magical paper
was a good touch.
Eric Angel
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Eric Angel wrote:
>
> > To All:
> > Just wondering if there was anybody in this group. I joined over a week
ago,
> > and there have be no postings yet.
> >
> > Eric Angel
> > plato@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
> Heh, heh, at current count there are actually 530 people subbed to this
> here group. As such things go this is a somewhat fickle group and there
> are times when one might even characterize it as recalcitrant.
> Occasionally there is a spark of brilliance that crops up just long enough
> to kindle ones hopes that things might get interesting here, but for the
> most part these sparks quickly die and the l*st slides back into its usual
> torpor. I don't know what it is but there definitly seems to be a
> reluctance to engage the work itself and instead what you're apt to find
> are questions that would seek to reveal the true subject beneath the work
> -- Just _who_ is Foucault really? -- as if the work itself had never been
> read. Or another favorite, you will often find those who have no love for
> questions but rather would seek only answers, as if they were up against
> the limit of a deadline and hoping that the net would magically produce a
> paper for them. Or you might also run into an attempt to "humanize" the
> work, forcinf Foucault to divulge an ethics that we might find more
> palatable in our daily existence.
>
> I've often wondered if people shy from engaging the work out of fear,
> scared, as it were, by the prospect that this is a minor space where the
> copy right remains in doubt and the publishers accolades are not
> bestowed. Ah but you'll have to forgive me for I do seem to be whining.
>
> Flannon
>
You wouldn't happen to belong to the Nietzsche group too? The magical paper
was a good touch.
Eric Angel